Skip to main content

Full text of "Studies On Some Concepts Of The Alankara Sastra"

See other formats

The AdyUr Library Series —Ne. 33 


“Thrift pi^Hi 




Department of Sanskrit ^ University of Madras. 
Author of * Bhoja's Srhgdra Prakas^a, ‘ The Number 
of Rasas * etc. 


Price Rs, 4-0-0 

Printed by 

At The Vasanta Press, 
Adyar. Madras 


It is my privilege to introduce to the world of scholarship 
Dr. Raghavan’s second book in the Adyar Library Series 
entitled Some Concepts of Alankdra S^dstra. His first book, 
The Number of Rasas, was published by the Adyar Library 
in 1940 and the uniformly good reception which it has had 
at the hands of literary critics has made me hasten with the 
w'ork of bringing out this second publication. 

The subject of Indian Aesthetics has yet to be built up by 
research work not only in Gita, Natya, S'ilpa and Citra but 
also in the important field of Sanskrit Alankara S-astra. The 
vast and noteworthy contributions of Indian minds on the 
subject of Literary Criticism have not received the attention 
which scholars here and in other countries have shown to 
Indian contributions to Philosophy. 

Bharata who defined Drama as re-presentation of moods 
{Bhd:ca-antikirtana) and said that Rasa-anubhava (experience 
of Rasa) is its essence ; Bhamaha and Dandin who emphasized 
that Beautiful Expression (Vahrokti or Alankdra) is the 
vital thing in poetry (p. 260) ; Vamana who stre^d 
Saundarya (p. 261) and declared Style (Rlti) as the soul 
{Atman) of expression (p. 143) ; Anandavardhana to whom it 
was given to show that the revelation in Art takes 
place through Suggestion {Dhvani) ; Abhinavagupta who 
expressly said that the ‘ soul ’ of poetry is the experience 
of Beauty {Cdrutvapratlti^ p. 263), and formulated along 


v^ith others, that ultimately Harmony (Aucitya) is the life 
of Kavya (pp. 194-257) ; Bhatta Nayaka who distinguished 
poetry from other utterances (p. 17) as ‘ Mode of Expression ' 
{Abhidhavyapara) subordinating both Word and Idea (S^abd<z 
and Arth<z) ; Kuntaka who based style on poet’s character 
(p. 165), Mahima Bha^^a, Bhoja — these would rank with the 
world’s eminent Literary critics. It may well be claimed that 
Rasa^ Dhvani and Aucitya form the three great contributions 
of Sanskrit Poetics to world’s literature on the subject. 

Among the more important topics, dealt with in this 
book, Alaitkara, Rlti, Aucitya, Saundarya (pp. 261-3) and 
Camatkdra (pp. 268-271), deserve to be specially mentioned. 
The treatment is original and some topics have been dealt with 
for the first time. The Author has utilized for his studies not 
only printed books, but a number of works available only in 
manuscript. The accounts are historical and given in great 
detail, so that a complete examination of the ideas of all the 
writers on a particular concept may lead to the discovery of 
several ideas which will be of value for a proper appreciation 
of the finer aspects of the rich contributions of the Alankdra 
ffdstra. It will be seen that some of the studies take into 
account contributions of Western writers also ; and it is hoped 
that the comparative study which the author mentions on 
p. 255, will be published soon. 

It is with great pleasure that I record my sincere thanks 
to the author for the co-operation which he has been extending 
to me in the publication of the Adyar Library Series. 

Adyar G. Srinivasa Murti, 

14th April 1942. Honorary Director. 


I HAVE dealt with Sahitya, Ukti, Dosa, Guna, Vakrokti, 
Alahkara, Dhvani and Rasa in my book on Bhoja’s 
S'rhgara Prakas'a. The contents of this volume supple- 
ment the studies contained in my book on the S'rhgara 
PrakSs'a. The opening study here of the Laksana 
forms the first exhaustive account of that little-studied 
concept. In the study of the Riti here, 1 have dis- 
cussed it in relation to the conception of Style in the 
West. The study of Aucitya presented in this book 
forms the only account of that important concept. In 
these and the other studies in this book, I have, on the 
basis of a detailed, historical survey of the concepts as 
dev'eloped by the several Sanskrit Alahkarikas, en- 
deavoured to understand and interpret their underlying 
ideas and the value of these for the art and appreciation 
of literature. 

I am thankful to the authorities of the Journal of 
Oriental Research, Madras, the Journal of the Madras 
University, Madras, the Indian Historical Quarterly, 
Calcutta and the Indian Culture, Calcutta for their 
permission to bring out in the form of this book these 
studies of mine on concepts of the Alahkara S'astra 
which originally appeared in those journals in the form 

VI 11 

of articles. I am thankful to the authorities of the 
Madras University for permitting this publication, and 
to Dr. Srinivasa Murti, Director, Adyar Library, for 
accepting to publish this book in the Adyar Library 
Series, as also to Dr. C. Kunhan Raja, D.Phil, (Oxon.), 
Curator, Eastern Section, Adyar Library, and Head 
of the Department of Sanskrit, University of Madras. 

Madras V. Raghavan 

16 - 3-42 



Foreword ...... v 

Preface ....... vii 

Abbreviations and Select Bibliography ... xi 

j|u#aksana . . . . . . 1*47 

Use and Abuse of Alarikara .... 48-91 

Svabhavokti , . . . . . 92-116 

Bhavika . . . .117-130 

Riti . ... . . . 131-181 

Vrtti in Kavya ...... 182-193 

Aucitya ....... 194-257 

Names of Sanskrit Poetics .... 258-267 

Camatkara ...... 268-271 

Addenda ...... 273-277 

Index ....... 279-312 


{For a full list of Works and Authors^ Index) 



Abhi. Bhd, — Abhinavabharati, Abhinavagupta’s commentary on 
Bharata’s Natyas'astra. MS. in the Madras Govt. Oriental 
MSS. Library. R. nos. 2478, 2774, 2785 
Kavis'iksa of Jayamahgalacarya. MS. described with extracts 
in Appendix I, pp. 78-9 of the First Detailed Report of Opera- 
tions in search of MSS. in the Bombay circle, 1882-3, by 
P. Peterson 

Kavyaloka of Hariprasada. MS. described with extracts on 
pp.. 356-7 of the Third Detailed Report of Operations in search 
of Sanskrit MSS. in the Bombay circle, 1884-86, by P. Peterson 

C. C. — Camatkaracandrika of Vis^ves'vara. MS. in the Madras 

Govt. Oriental MSS. Library, R. no. 2679 ; MS. described in 
the Catalogue of Sanskrit MSS. in the Library of the India 
Office by J, Eggeling, MS. no. 3966 

D. R, Vyd, — Das^arupakavyakhya of Bahuriipamis'ra. MS. in the 

Madras Govt. Oriental MSS. Library. R. nos. 3670, 4188 
Natakacandrika of Rupagosvamin. MS. in the Madras Govt. 
Oriental MSS. Library. D. no. 12900. This work is however 
published in Bengali script. Cossimbazar 1907 


Rasakalika of Riidrabhatta. MS. in the Madras Govt. Oriental MSS. 
Library. R. nos, 2241, 3274 

Rasarnavalankara of Prakas'avarsa. MS. in the Madras Govt. 

Oriental MSS. Library. R. no. 3761 
Ritivrttilaksaija ot Vitthaladiksita. MS. noted in the Catalogue 
of Sanskrit MSS. in the Central Provinces by Keilhorn, 
Nagpur 1874 

Sr, Pra. — S'rngaraprakas'a of Bhoja. MS. in the Madras Govt. 

Oriental MSS. Library. R. no. 3252. 

S'rrigarasara of Vehkatanarayanadiksita. MS. in the Madras Govt. 

Oriental MSS. Library. D. no. 12958 
S,K.A, Vya , — Sarasvatlkaijthabharanavyakhya of Bhatta Nrsimha. 

MS. in the Madras Govt. Oriental MSS. Library. R. no. 2499 
Sahityakaumudi of Arkasuri. MS. in the Madras Govt. Oriental 
MSS. Library. R. no. 2391 

Sahityasara of Sarves'vara. MS. in the Madras Govt. Oriental MSS. 
Library, R. no. 2432 


Printed Sanskrit Books 

Agnipurana, Anandas'rama Series 41 
A. /?.- Anargharaghava of Murari with Rucipati’s commentary. 
KavyamMa 5 

Anyapades'as'ataka of Nilaka^thadiksita. Kavyamala Guc- 
chaka, VI 

Anyapades'as'ataka of Bhallata. Kavyamala Gucchaka IV 
Abhijnanas^akuntala of Kalidasa with Raghavabhatta’s com- 
mentary. N. S. Press, Bombay 
Amarus'ataka. Kavyamala 18 
Alankai^^kaustubha of Vis'ves'vara. KavyamMa 66 
Alankaras'ekhara of Kes^ava. Kavyamala 50 
Alankarasangraha of Amrtanandayogin 


A. S , — Alankarasarvasva of Ruyyaka with Jayaratha’s Vimars'ini. 
Kavyamala 35 

Alankarasarvasva of Ruyyaka with Samudrabandha’s gloss. 
TSS. 40 

Aryastavaraja. Vanivilas Press, Srirangam 
Au, V,C . — Aucityavicaracarca of Ksemendra. Kavyamala Guc- 
chaka I 

Karpiiramanjari of Rajas'ekhara with Vasudeva’s com- 
mentary. Kavyamala 4 

K.K.A. — Kavikanthabhararja of K§emendra. Kavyamala Guc- 
chaka IV 

Kadambari of Baiia 

Kamasutras of Vats 3 ^ayana with the Jayamahgala. Chow- 
khamba Sanskrit Series, Benares 
K.Pra, — Kavyapfakas'a of Mammata — 

—With Ma^ikyacandra’s gloss, University of Mysore, 
Oriental Library, Skt. Series, No. 60 
— With the commentaries of Vidyacakravarttin and Bhatta 
Gopala. TSS. 88, 100 

K.M. — Kavyamimamsa of Rajas^ekhara. GOS. 1 
K.A. — Kavyadars'a of Dandin — 

— With the Hrdaj'-arhgama and the commentary’’ of Taruija- 
vacaspati. Edn. by Prof. M. Rangacharya, Madras 
— With a gloss, ed. by Jivananda Vidyasagar 
• — With an anon, gloss. N. S. Press, Bombay 
Kavyanus^asana of Vagbhata. Kavyamala 43 
K,A. — Kavyanus^asana of Hemacandra with two glosses by author. 
Kavyamala 7i 

KA , — Kavyalankara of Bhamaha. Chowkhamba Press, Benares 
„ — Kavyalankara of Rudrata with Namisadhu’s commentary. 
KavyamMa 2 

/i.A.S.S. — Kavyalankarasarasangraha of Udbhata 

— With Pratiharenduraja’s commentary. Edn. by N. D. 


— With Tilaka’s commentary. GOS. LV. 

K,A, Su. and Vr , — Kavyalahkarasutras with Vrtti of Vamana ; with 
Gopendra Tippabhupala’s commentary. Vanivilas Press, 

K,S . — Kumarasambhava of KElidasa 

Kuvalayananda of Appayyadiksita with the RasikaraSjani of 
Gahgadharavajapeyin. Edn. by Pandit Halasyanatha 
sastrin, Kumbhakonam, 1892 

Gahgavataraijakavya of Nilaka^thadiksita. Kavyamala 76 
Gitagovinda of Jayadeva with the Rasikapriya of Kumbha- 
kar^ia. N. S. Press, Bombay 

Candraloka of Jayadeva with Vaidyanatha Payagunda’s gloss. 

Gujarathi Printing Press, Bombay. 1923 
Citramimamsa of Appayyadiksita. Kavyamala 38 
Tilakamanjari of Dhanapala. Kavyamala 85 
D.jR. — Das'arupaka of Dhananjaya with Dhanika’s Avaloka. N. S. 
Press, Bombay, 1897 

Dharmabinduprakarana with Municandracarya’s gloss. Aga- 
modaya Samiti Series 

Dhva. A. — Dhvanyaloka of Anandavardhana with the Locana of 
Abhinavagupta. Kavyamala 25. Edn. of 1928 
Nalacaritanataka of Nilaka^thadiksita. Balamanorama 
Press, Mylapore, Madras 
Nalavilasanataka of Ramacandra. GOS. 29 
Navasahasankacarita of Padmagupta. Bombay Skt. 
Series 53 

Natakalaksanaratnakos'a of Sagaranandin. Edn. M. Dillon. 
Oxford, 1937 

JV.S'. — Natyas'astra of Bharata 

— Kavyamala edn. K. M. 42 
— Kaafi Sanskrit Series No. 60 

— GOS. edn. with Abhinavagupta’s commentary, chs. 148, 
Nai . — Naisadhiyacarita of S'riharsa 


Pra, riid, — Prataparudriyayas'obhusana of Vidyanatha with the 
commentary of Kumarasvamin. Balamanorama Press, 
Mylapore, Madras 

Prai?abharana of Jagannatha. Kavyamala Gucchaka I 
Balaramayaija of Rajas'ekhara. Edn. Govinda Deva Sastri, 
Benares, 1869 

Brhatkathamanjari of Ksemendra. KavyamalSl 69 
Brhaddevata. Bibliotheca Indica CXXVII 

— With the Jaymahgala. N. S. Press. Bombay, 1928 
— With Mallinatha’s gloss. Bombay Skt. Series 56-7 
Bhagavata purana with S'ridhara’s commentary 
Bharatamanjari of Ksemendra. Kavyamala 65 
Bhd,Pra. — Bhavaprakas'a of S'aradatanaya. GOS. 45 
Bhojacampu. N. S. Press, Bombay. 

Mahaviracarita of Bhavabhuti. N. S. Press, Bombay 
M.M. — Malatimadhava of Bhavabhuti with Jagaddhara’s commen- 
tary. N. S. Press, Bombay 
Malavikagnimitra of Kalidasa 

M.jR. — Mudraraksasa of Vis'akhadatta. Edn. K. T. Telang. Bombay 
Skt. Series 27 

Mukapancas'ati, Kavyamala Gucchaka V 
Megha , — Meghaduta of Kalidasa 
R,V, — Raghuvams'a of Kalidasa 

jR.G. — Rasagahgadhara of Jagannatha pandita. Kavyamala 12 
R.A,S , — Rasarijavasudhakara of S'ingabhupala. TSS. 50 
R.r.— Rajatarangiiji of Kalhana. Bombay Skt. Series 45. 51. 54 
Rajendrakarnapura. Kavyamala Gucchaka 1 
Rd.Ram . — Ramayana of Valmiki. Kumbhakonam edn. 
Lalitavistara. Edn. Lefmann 
Lalitastavaratna. Kavyamala Gucchaka X 
V, J. — Vakroktijivita of Kuntaka. Edn. by Dr. S. K. De. Calcutta 
Oriental Series, No. 8 
Vakyapadiya of Bhartjhari 


Vagbha.talankara of Vagbhata with Simhadevagani’s com- 
mentary. Kavyamala 48 

Vasavadatta of Subandhu. Vanivilas Press, Srirangam. 

Vik.yV, D. — Vikramorvas'iya of K^idasa 

Viddhasalabhanjika of Rajas^ekhara. Edn. Jivananda Vidya- 
sagar. Calcutta 1883 ' 

VisQudharmottarapurana. Venkatesvara Press edn. 
Venisamhara of Bhatta Narayaija. 

Vemabhupalacarita of Vamana Bhatta Bana. Vanivilas 
Press, Srirangam 

V,V , — Vyaktiviveka of Mahimabhatta with an anon, commentary. 
TSS. 5. 


S'ivalilarnava of Nilakamhadiksita. Vanivilas Press, Sri- 

S'. V.— Sis'upElavadha of Magha. N. S. Press, Bombay 

S'rhgaratilaka of Rudrabhatta. Kavyamala Gucchaka 

Sabharanjanas'ataka of Niiaka^thadiksita. Kavyamala 
Gucchaka IV 

SJ{.A . — Saras vatikanthabharana of Bhoja with Ratnes^vara’s 
commentary. Kavyamala 95 
Sahrdayananda of Krsnananda. Kavyamala 32 
Sahityadarpana of Vis'vanatha 
Sahityamimamsa. TSS. 114 
Sahityasara of Acyutaraya. N. S. Press, Bombay. 
Subhasijtanivi of Vedantades'ika. Kavyamala Gucchaka 

Suvrttatilaka of Ksemeiidra. Kavyamala Gucchaka II 
Hamsavilasa of Hamsamitthu. GOS LXXXI 
Haravijaya of Ratnakara with Alaka’s commentary 
Kavyamala 22 

Harsacarita of Bana. N. S. Press, Bombay 



Bhoja’s S'rngara Prakas'a by V. Raghavan, M.A., Ph.D., 
Karnatak Publishing House, Bombay 
History of Alahkara Literature by P. V. Kane, M.A., LL.M., 
being an Introduction to an edn. of the Sahityadarpaija 
History of Sanskrit Literature by Dr. A. B. Keith 
Pathak Commemoration Volume, Bhandarkar Oriental Re* 
search Institute, Poona 

Some Aspects of Literary Criticism in Sanskrit or the 
Theories of Rasa and Dhvani by A. Sankaran, M.A., 
Ph.D., University of Madras 

dkr. Poe . — Studies in the History of Sanskrit Poetics, 2 Vols., by 
S. K. De. M.A., D.Litt. 


Annals BORL — Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research 
Institute, Poona 

Annals of Oriental Research, University of Madras 
Indian Culture, Calcutta. 

IHQ . — Indian Historical Quarterly, Calcutta 

JOR. Madras . — Journal of Oriental Research, Madras 


Bdla. m . — BalamanoramgL Press, Mylapore, Madras 
Bdn . — Edition 

G^S } — Gaekwar Oriental Series, Baroda 

K. M. — KSvyamSla, N. S. Press, Bombay 
iV. S. — Nirnaya Sagar Press, Bombay 

TSS* } — Trivandrum Sanskrit Series, Trivandrum 

VyS, — Vyakhyfi 




Authorship and Style : Schopenhauer 
Creative Unity : Rabindranath Tagore 
Essay on Criticism : Pope 
Essentials of Criticism : Lamborn 
On style : Demetrius 
On the Sublime ; Longinus 
Personality : Rabindranath Tagore 
Picture of Dorian Gray : Oscar Wilde 
Poetic Diction : Robert Bridges 
Poetic Diction : Thomas Quayle 
Poetics : Aristotle 

Poetry as Representative Art : Raymond 

Problem of Style : M. Murry 

Rhetoric : Atistotle 

Rhetoric and Composition : Bain 

Sjeyen Arts and Seven Confusions : J. E. Spingarn 

Sleep and Beauty : Keats 

Some Principles of Literary Criticism : Winchester 
Style ; Pater 
Style ; Raleigh 

Technical Elements of Style : R. L. Stevenson 
What is Art ? Tolstoy. 













The N atakacandrika 
of Rupagosvamin 



in the S'akuntala 

























76 ■ 
























p. 107 















of this chapter 


































[L Introductory — II. The text of Bharata on the subject : 
2 recensions — HI. The literature on the subject — IV. Its three 
names : Laksana, Bhusana and Natyalarikara — V. The Das'apaksi, 
‘ 10 views on the subject in the Abhinava Bharati — VI. 
Probable authors of the views in the Das'apaksi — VI I. Criticism 
of the Das'apaks! — VHI. Abhinavagupta’s own view — IX. Other 
writers on the subject : Dandin, Dhananjaya and Dhanika, Bhoja, 
S'aradatanaya, Jayadeva, S'ihgabhupala, Vis'vanatha, Raghava- 
bhatta, Jagaddhara, Alaka, Rucipati, Bahurupamis'ra, Kumbha- 
karna, Sarves'vara and Acyutaraya — X. Bharata’s own view ; the 
text of Bharata independently studied — conclusion — XI. Supple- 
ment : table of the Laksanas in the various lists according to the 
different writers.] 


Sahitya along with grammar and prosody finds treatment 
at the hands of Bharata under Vacikabhinaya, the Kavya 
which is the text of the drama. The Kavya, Bharata says, 
should have 36 Laksanas. 

f^^i: 1 XVI. 169. In chapter 17, he gives a list of 36 
Laksanas and defines each. In the end he calls them ^ 

adornments to Kavya. He does not illustrate these 
as he illustrates the metres and Alankaras. He does not 
specify their place in Kavya and does not define their difference 



from Alankara. This concept of Laksana is not elaborated 
very much in later literature on Poetics or Dramaturgy.. 
Abhinava opens his exposition of the topic by observing that, as 
a topic of Poetics, it is quite unfamiliar, Aprasiddha. 

rrm: 1 

3 ^ I Abhi. Bha. p. 379 .' Many of these look like 

Alahkaras while some actually go by names which are 
Alahkaras in later literature. There is no clear grasp of 
the exact nature of Laksana in the few writers on Dramaturgy 
who treat of it. Bharata certainly means them to be features 
of Kavya in general and not of drama only. It would seem, 
by Bharata mentioning them first and by giving 36 of 
them, Bharata considers Laksana of greater importance than 
Alankara. It had its day when it loomed large in the fields, 
eclipsing Alankara, which was poor in numbers. But gradually 
Laksana died in the Alankara S'astra. Writers on drama 
took it up, some enthusiastically defining and illustrating 
them, some doing so out of loyalty to Bharata and some 
dismissing them as having been included in Alahkaras or 
Bhavas. This lost Paddhati of Laksana has a history of its 
own which is the subject of this chapter. 


In chapter 17, Bharata gives a list of 36 Laksanas, 
defines each and in the end indicates their character and 

' References to the Natya S'astra of Bharata are to the Kas'i 
edition of that work. References to the Abhinava Bharati are to- 
Vol. II of that work in the MS. of the Govt. Oriental MSS. Library, 
Madras, the corrupt text of which, I studied and reconstructed 
as far as possible with the help of Mm. Prof. S. Kuppuswami 
Sastri. The GOS Edition of the work, not infrequently, adds to- 
the mistakes. See GOS. LXVIII, pp, 290 — 321. 



place in the Kavya in one verse. This portion of the Natya 
S'astra has two recensions, even as the portions on metres 
and Gunas. The text on Gunas followed by Abhinava is 
not the one followed by Mahgala, whose fragments on the 
concept of Guna are available in Hemacandra and Manikya- 
candra. But as regards metres and Laksanas Abhinava is 
acquainted with both the recensions. He notes both the 
recensions as regards the definitions of the Laksanas and says 
he follows mainly the recension handed down to hirn through 
his teacher. 1 ’ p. 384. This 

recension enumerates the Laksanas in Upajati metre ; the 
other recension, in Anustubh metre. He adds that he will 
indicate the other recension also then and there. Accordingly 
while treating t)f the Laksanas, one by one, he notices the 
definitions in the other recension and also shows, quite 
arbitrarily in most cases, how both mean the same thing. 
Further, though both recensions have Priyavacana, Abhinava 
includes the Priyavacana of the Anustubh list in the Prot- 
sahana of the Upajati list, and in the Priyavacana of the 
Upajati list itself, he includes the Bhrams'a of the Anustubh 
list. Garhana of the Anustubh list is twice included under 
Kapata and Karya of the Upajati list; similarly Prasiddhi 
under both Akhyana and Anuniti. Paridevana of the Upajati 
list is said to include two, Ksobha and Anukta siddhi, of the 
Anustubh list. The Kavyamala edition of the Natya S'astra 
has the recension followed by Abhinava, the Upajati recen- 
sion. The other recension in Anustubh verses is found in the 
Kas'i edition which also gives in the footnote the Upajati 
recension. The Rasarnavasudhakara and Sahityadarpana follow 
the Anustubh recension while Bhoja, with whom elaboration 
is the principle, must have been acquainted with both recen- 
sions, since he makes up a list of 64 Laksanas from both 



recensions. The Das'arupa follows the Upajati recension. 
The two recensions differ in their enumeration as well as 
in the definition of each Laksana. Only 17 Laksanas are 
common to both. Of the definitions, eight are common to 
both, those of Bhusana, Aksara sanghata, S'obha, Gunakirtana, 
Manoratha, Prccha, Sams'aya and Prapti ; the definition of 
Karya of the Upajati list is the same as that of Garhana in 
the Anustubh list ; five definitions agree in substance, those of 
Udaharana, Nirukta, Siddhi, Padoccaya and Drstanta ; the 
difinition of Anuvrtti of the Upajati list agrees in substance 
with that of Daksinya of the Anustubh list. Yanca and 
Priyavacana of the Upajati list are defined by the same 
identical verse, and the definition suits the latter and not the 
former. There are also corruptions in the definitions in both 
recensions. The table at the end of this chapter shows the 
Laksanas according to the two lists, how Abhinava includes 
those of the Anustubh list in one or the other of the Upajati 
list, additional Laksanas in other writers, and other details. 


Coming to the literature on the subject of Laksana — 
Besides Abhinava’s commentary on this portion of the Natya 
S'astra, which deals elaborately with Laksana, earlier com- 
mentaries of Udbhata, Lollata and S'ankuka must have dealt 
with the concept of Laksana. Bhatta Nayaka’s Hrdaya- 
darpana also probably dealt with it. We have sure evidence 
of Bhatta Tauta having treated of Laksanas. In an extract 
given from his Kavyakautuka in the Abhinava Bharati on 
p. 541, Vol. II, we find Laksana included in his enumeration 
of the ‘Kavyapaddhatis’, along with Guna, Riti, Alankara etc. 
Further Abhinava ascribes to Tauta certain definite views 



on Laksana during the course of his attempt to explain the 
difference between Alahkara and Laksana. We noted above 
how the Upajati recension was handed down to Abhinava 
from his teacher, i.e,, from his teacher’s Kavyakautuka, upon 
which Abhinava had commented. Before Abhinavagupta, 
views on Laksana w^ere very confused, as is seen from 
Abhinavagupta’s commentary on the Laksanas which opens 
with 10 Purvapaksas on the real nature of the concept of 
Laksana. Bhoja’s S'rhgaraprakas'a enumerates, defines and 
illustrates, not 36 of them, but 64. S'aradatanaya follows 
Bhoja. The Das'arupa aud Avaloka mention the 36 Laksanas 
and briefly indicate their inclusion in Alankaras and Bhavas. 
Bahurupamis'ra, in his gloss on the Das'arupa, speaks twice 
of the Laksanas and in addition to the Laksanas, mentions also 
the Natyalahkaras. The Sahgitaraja of king Kumbhakarna 
dealt with the Laksanas. Sarves'vara’s Sahityasara deals with 
the Laksanas of the Upajati list. S'ifigabhupala calls them 
‘ Bhusanas’, gives 36 of them, defines and illustrates them. 
The Sahityadarpana also gives them with definitions and 
illustrations. The Natakacandrika, an unpublished work on 
Drama, criticises the Sahityadarpana and follows the Rasar- 
navasudhakara as regards the 36 Laksanas. From Raghava 
bhatta’s commentary on the S'akuntala we learn that Matr- 
gupta also dealt with Laksanas separately in his work on 
Natya. Raghavabhatta indicates some of the 36 Laksanas 
in the several situations of the S'akuntala. Jagadhara is 
another commentator who, in his Tika on the Malatimadhava, 
points out a few of the Laksanas. Rucipati, in his com- 
mentary on the Anargharaghava, points out two Laksanas. 
Rajanaka Alaka, in his commentary on Ratnakara's Hara- 
vijaya, has occasion to speak of Laksana. Alaka follows the 
Upajati recension. The only w'ork on poetics proper which 



treats of Laksanas is Jayadeva’s Candraloka. It defines only 
a few of them with illustrations. 


Laksana has changed its name in its history. S'inga- 
bhupala and his followers call it Bhusana. This name is 
derived from Bharata himself describing the Laksana as 
< ’ and ‘ \ Though Bhoja calls it only 

Laksana, S'aradatanaya calls it Bhusana at the beginning and 
ends by calling it Alankara. Jagaddhara calls it Natyalankara. 


Bharata’s own view of Laksana as far as it can be made 
out from his text alone, must be taken up only lastly. Before 
that we shall see what views of Laksana are contained in the 
Abhinava Bharatl. Abhinavagupta gives a number of con- 
fused views held by others and at the end of these he numbers 
them as ten. But actually, on first reading, we get only eight 
views. The text here is very corrupt and perhaps lost also 
here and there. These following ten views can be made out 
of this portion of the Abhinava BharatL Pp. 379-381. 
Vol. II. Mad. MS. 

i. Laksana is different from Guna which is inherent in 
Rasa, the soul of poetry. As belonging to the body of poetry, 
Laksana is on a par with Alankara with this difference : It is 
not separate from the body (i.e.) it is not Alankara 

is separate from the body. | 

1 Laksana is the body itself and 
as such is further adorned with Alahkaras. Just as we take the 
metaphor of necklace or anklet when we talk of Alankara 



so also we have to take the metaphor of the Laksana of the 
body, such as the Samudrika-laksanas, when we speak of the 
Kavyalaksana. This Laksana is twofold — natural, Siddha- 
rupa, such as the quality of having broad eyes, and artificial, 
Sadhyarupa, such as the occasional grace while adopting a 
beautiful gait. In this view, Laksanas are features in the 
personality of the chief character of the story. 

— I ^ 

W ^ I P- 379. 

1 p. 380. 

ii. Some others think that situations or points in the plot 
of the drama or the Sandhyahgakas are called Laksana. Just 
as the Samudrika-laksanas like Pas'a and Dhvaja indicate the 
greatness and the beauty of a Mahapurusa, so also these 
Laksanas which are so many points in the development of the 
plot beautifying the story ; as beautifiers of the text, they are 
called • Laksanas ; but the same are called Sandhyangas as 
developers of the plot, and Vrttyahgas as promoters of Rasa. 



’TJc5%:^gqqi%rI; n | p. 380. 

iii. Some differentiate Gunas, Alankaras and Laksanas 
not by the ^^l^qisfqvilcf adopted by those who hold the first 
view, but by defining three different activities on the part 
of the poet’s faculty in introducing the Gunas, Alankaras 
and Laksanas in a Kavya. The poet’s imagination has three 
activities, Vyaparas, and three corresponding vibrations, 
Parispandas. In the very first vibration the poet’s genius 
conceives the Rasa and its Guna, say S'riigara and its Guna, 
Madhurya. The second vibration which is also called 
Varnana, effects the introduction of Alahkara. The third 
activity chooses the words and ideas. The effect of this third 
activity is the actual body of poetry, the Kavyas'arira, suggest- 
ing the presence of the ten Gunas, S'lesa etc. That beauty 
of the Kavyas'arira which is the effect of this third activity 
and which is not covered by the beauty effected by an 
Alahkara is what is called Laksana. 



f^sif^; (?) II 

m goii^^^oifspiTir; i p. sso. 

This view seems to be like the first in making Laksana 
the Kavyas'arira. This view further seems to formulate two 
sets of Gunas, one, the three Gunas , and 

which are said to inhere in Rasa as Rasadharmas and the 
other, the ten Gunas of the words, etc. The suggesting 
of these and the effecting of a fine texture or appearance^ 
Snigdha spars'a, in S'abda and Artha, forming the body of 
Kavya, is said to be Laksana by those who hold this view. 

iv. The fourth view, instead of restricting the Laksanas 
to Vakyas or points in the plot, lifts them to the position 

of — characteristics of different kinds of poems. As 

for instance, some poems are characterised by the speciality 
of having profuse adornment of Gunas and Alankaras. Such 
poems are called by the first Laksana called Bhusana, which 
Bharata defines as the ample use of Gunas and Alankaras. 

II XVII. 6. 

The example given here for such poem, i.e. a Bhusapa 
prabandha, is Meghaduta ! 

p. 381 



V. We are unable to have much light as regards the 
iifth view on which we have only a brief remark. It says — 

fra I p. 381. 

vi. Certain others are said to view Laksana as the 
proper use of Gunas and Alahkaras, i.e. in accordance 
with the principle of Rasa-aucitya. 

1 p. 381. 

vii. The seventh view has affinities with the first and 
third views. It takes its stand on the fact that Laksana, 
like Alankara, belongs to the body of Kavya and secondly, 
like Alankara, it is a beautifying factor. The beautiful 
Kavyas'arira itself is held as Laksana. Such beauty as is 
inherent in Kavyas like the Amarus'ataka, even in the absence 
of Alankaras or what may be called natural beauty, is the 
proper scope for the concept of Laksana. 

(^^01) 53 5T.SI 1 p. 381. 

viii. The eighth view has been made out with great 
difficulty for the text here is very brief. This view differen- 
tiates Laksana on this score : Bharata has given only three 
Alankaras, Upama, Dipaka and Rupaka. These three 
become infinite with manifold species. The means of their 
multiplication is the interaction of these three Alankaras 
with the 36 Laksanas. The text available is this — 

I p. 381. 


This view is more elaborately found in a further context 
on the basis of which we may reconstruct this text thus — 

In discussing the difference between Alahkara and 
Laksana, in the Alahkara section, Abhinava gives the same 
view more elaborately and as his own teacher’s, ix. Bhatta 
Tauta’s. Upama becomes by adding to it the 

Laksana called 3^3^15 5 becomes if the Laksana 

is added to it and so on. This view of Tauta is 
very clever and though it does not correctly define Laksana 
and its nature, yet indicates how it is an easy transition 
from Laksana to Alahkara. 

(f?) 1 

3iR|ra: I [3T] ra:g;^T i p. 404 . 

ix. The ninth view is obscure since, here again, the 
text is meagre. 

. f^(5r^ I p. 381. 

Abhinava later uses this view also and explains it 
as the beautification of S'abda by S'abda, of S'abda by 
Artha, of Artha by S'abda and of Artha by Artha. In effect 
this view also comes to be the same as the third view, 
Laksana being held to be such beauty of the body of poetry 
as is present even in the absence of any Alahkara. 

X. The tenth and the last view, as Abhinava himself 
points out, does not differ from the second view very much. 



Just as in the Mimamsa S'astra the different subject head& 
are distinguished by the Laksanas, etc., 

so also in Kavya, particular points in the story go by the 
name Bhusana, Aksarasahghata and other Laksanas. This 
view thus, except for the illustration from the Mimamsa, is 
not different from the second Paksa which holds Laksanas 
to be ‘ ’s or ‘ ’s. 


Now as regards the authors of these ten views — We have 
no evidence to definitely affirm where these views are to 
be found or who held them^^ Abhinava does not give the 
name of the theorists here, as he gives in his discussion 
on Rasa-realisation. It is not likely that these ten are purely 
imaginary Paksas. In the course of the exposition of the second 
and the third view, Abhinava twice quotes Anustubh verses 
with the words The third view takes its stand 

on Vyaparabheda. From what the Anustubhs look and the 
association of Vyapara with Bhatta Nayaka we may conjecture 
that some of these views are expounded in Bhatta Nayaka’s 
Hrdayadarpana. We also know of the Mimamsa predilections 
of Bhatta Nayaka. So it is likely that the tenth view also 
is contained in his work. We can also make out the 
author of the eighth view definitely as Abhinavagupta’s own 
teacher, Bhatta Tauta, whose work, the Kavyakautuka, 
must have dealt with the called at some length. 


Taking this Dasapaksi — the 10 views given above, — the 
ideas more commonly associated with Laksana are these — 

1. Laksana belongs to the body of Kavya. 



2. It is a beautifying element. 

3. As such, its difference from Alahkara consists in this 
that it is more comprehensive, is not a separate entity like 
the ornament, Alahkara, but is Aprthaksiddha, i,e., is the 
Kavyas'arira itself. 

4. By itself, it gives grace to the Kavya while Alahkara 
is added to it for extra-beauty. 

This is one group of ideas, taking inspiration from 
the metaphor of Samudrika-laksana. Another line of 
thought is not to bring Laksana at all in relation to Kavya 
in general nor to take it, like Alahkara, as a beautifying 
factor, but to associate it only with drama and the several 
situations in the development of its plot. Abhinava and his 
teacher took Laksana in accordance with the first group of 
ideas, considering Laksana to be ‘Kavya-s'obhakara-dharma,’ 
a beautifying element pertaining to the body of Kavya in 
general. The other line of thought represented by Paksas 
nos. 2 and 10, considering Laksana to be like Sandhyahgakas, 
which Abhinava does not accept, is the view that has how- 
ever survived in some works. The works on dramaturgy 
alone (a few of them) treat of it and these take Laksanas 
to be features of drama like the Sandhyahgakas. The curious 
and purely speculative views, the connection of which with 
Bharata’s own view we do not see at all, are views no. 4, which 
takes them to be characteristics which classify the Kavyas into 36 
kinds and no. 5 which takes Laksana to be the poet’s 
The main view which considers Laksana, like Alahkara, as 
a beautifying element, but pervading the whole of the body of 
the Kavya, died with Abhinavagupta. The concept of Alah- 
kara, with which, even at its birth Laksana has an over- 
lapping of functions, swallows it up. Even Raghavabhatta 
who takes Laksana to be separate from Sandhyahgas, swearing 



by Abhinavagupta’s great pains to explain them at length 
as different from Sandhyahgas etc., takes them only as 
Natakadharmas and not as Kavyadharmas in general. 
Bhoja, S'aradatanaya, S'ihgabhupala and Vis'vanatha accept 
their difference from Sandhyahgas, but mention them only 
in Nataka and never as being related comprehensively to 
poetic expression itself. The Candraloka is the only Alan- 
kara work which treats of Laksana as a feature like 
Alahkara, of The second line of thought which 

connects Laksanas with Sandhyahgas was first uncon- 
scious of its suicidal suggestion. Das'arupaka rejects them 
on the score that they have no individuality and can be 
included in Alahkaras or Bhavas. Vis'vanatha realises this 
and says that though the 36 Laksanas can be included in 
Sandhyahgas etc., they must be shown to be separately 
existent in a drama for the reason that Bharata has treated 
of them separately. But many works on dramaturgy do not 
treat of the Laksana at all. The reason is plain. The Das'a- 
rupaka shows us how the Laksanapaddhati perished. The 
Laksanas lacked individuality and most of them showed them- 
selves to be some Alahkaras or Bhavas or some Sandhyahgakas. 
But it may be observed that the authors on dramaturgy 
who have shown an extraordinary genius for classification 
and elaboration of Ahgas on a stupendous scale might have 
followed the logic of the inclusion of Laksana in other 
concepts and saved us their lists of minor Sandhyahgakas, 
most of which can be shown to be not different at all 
from some Alahkara or Bhava. The same criticism applies 
also to the lovers of Alahkaras who have made a list of 
more than a hundred of them. As for instance the Visadana 
and the Ullasa, Alahkaras in the Kuvalayananda, are cases 
of Bhavas. 




Coming to Abhinavagupta’s own view of Laksana — the 
main thread of his view must be caught in the bewildering text 
on this concept in various places in this chapter. He points 
out even at the outset that these views cannot stand to 
be logical when we consider the 36 Lak^nas themselves 
one by one in the light of these views ; for, to a certain 
extent, the views have been purely speculative, spinning round 
the word Laksana having its counterpart in the Samudrika- 
laksana of the human body, without relating themselves 
to the nature of the individual Laksanas. So Abhinavagupta 
makes a convenient suggestion that the 10 views cannot be 
exclusively and -separately followed. 

JT q«lT I 

p. 381. 

One comprehensive and definite view must be made 
out of the cloud of these several Paksas. Abhinava adopts 
shades of each view and gives his own definite idea of 
Laksana, which itself takes conclusive shape only as he 
proceeds further and further. Here and there Abhinava can- 
not help pushing new wine into old bottles in his difficult 
task. One line of thought he has definitely rejected and 
that is, the association of Laksana with Nataka only and 
taking it as something like Sandhyafigakas. He refutes this 
view in this chapter and elsewhere also while dealing with 
the Vlthyangas. He says there — 

^ f I 


pp. 481-2. 

In this same context Abhinava thus indicates the differ- 
ence of Laksana and Alahkara on the one hand and the 
Ahgas on the other : 

i p. 482. 

Having thus rejected the view that Laksanas are identical 
with Sandhyahgakas, as also the fourth and fifth views, he 
combines the various ideas of the other line of thought and 
says that Laksana is Kavyas'arira itself. It is said to be the 
Abhidhavyapara itself as a whole. Commenting on the verse — 

in the text, Abhinavagupta says that the poetic expression 
itself as a whole, written in accordance with the Rasa, is 
called Laksana. Laksana is nothing but the Abhidhavyapara 
cf the poet’s language intended to evoke Rasa. 

This Laksana or the beautiful language or the poet’s 
Abhidha itself is what distinguishes Kavya from other 



utterances. And here, as is usual with him wherever he 
agrees, Abhinava quotes Bhatta Nayaka, who emphasises 
Abhidha, or the poet's Vyapara in choosing the beautiful 
mode of expression as the characteristic of Kavya, which is 
different from S'astra or Purana. In S'astra, S'abda pre- 
dominates. It is enough in Purana if the story, the Artha, 
is somehow said. But in Kavya one looks to the delectable 
way in which things are put. Thus in Kavya, the Vyapara is 
important while word and idea are subordinate. 



1 p. 383, 

Abhinava quotes Bhamaha also here to show that 
Kavyas'arira is distinguished from other utterances by the 
peculiarity of its expression, by its Later also he 

Says — 

g^:, ff 

55^01 JT i p. 405. 

qgi^qjq 1 p. 382 . 




Immediately after quoting the above given verses from 
Bhatta Nayaka he says — 

In another place he says — 

p. 399. 

If Laksana should be thus taken as equal to poetic ex- 
pression, the natural consequence is that Laksanas are not 
36 only but as many as the poetic expressions. This Abhinava 
grants and says that Bharata only indicated a few, 36 of 
such possible Laksanas. He adds that it is because of this 
that, according to another view, Bharata gives another set 
of Laksanas with definitions. Abhinava here refers to the 
Anustubh and Upajati recensions, takes both of them as 
given by Bharata, but says, that he follows the list handed 
down from his own teacher.* 

. . rl5!lT ^ 

^fq ^ i ^ 3^ ^ \ 

p. 384. 

^ But this is an after-thought which Abhinava got up as 
evidence for his view of infinity of Laksanas. It is also a passing 
thought, for instead of, consistently with this, explaining the two 
sets with different illustrations, he tries with great difficulty to 
show the identity of many of the Laksaisas of the Anustubh list 
with those of the other, which he mainly follows. 



It also follows, if Laksana is Kavyas'arira it has further 
adornment with Alahkaras. So says Abhinava — 


p. 404. 

m :3q*n^: I p. 404. 

Laksana is Kavya itself while Alahkara is extraneous orna- 
ment, Prthaksiddha, Vastvantara. 

^S%DT: 1 

I p. 382. 

Thus Abhinavagupta adopts the first view, the third 
view and the seventh view, in generally stating his conception 
of Laksana. In interpreting particular Laksanas and their 
definitions given by Bharata, Abhinava adopts the other 
views related to these views. Thus in explaining the first 
Laksana called Bhusana or Vibhusana he adopts the sixth 
view. Bharata defines Bhusana thus — 

Abhinava says here that Bhusana is the proper use of Alan- 
kSras and Gunas in accordance with the Rasa, with an eye 
to In pointing out what this Rasa-aucitya is and 

how Alankaras should be introduced in accordance with 
it, he quotes Anandavardhana’s Karikas in the Dhvanyaloka, 



II Uddyota, on Alankara-samiksa — 

etc. and refers to his own Locana thereon. 

Then Abhinava adopts the seventh view often in dealing 
with the definitions of particular Laksanas and in suitably 
illustrating them. The illustrative verses he cites for a Laksana 
happen to exhibit an Alankara also. Abhinava notes that fact 
and says that the beauty of the verse is due, not to the Alankara 
but only to the Laksana. He shows how there is no 
by Alankaras. Commenting on his illustration for the second 
Laksana called he says — 


p. 386* 

This non-alafikaric beauty in this case is due to the 
Laksana, Aksara sanghata, w'hich Abhinava takes as Pada- 
aucitya, the suggestive appropriateness of Padas, Namapadas 
and Sambodhana padas. Having said this, Abhinava finds 
himself hard put to distinguish this Laksana of the Sabhi- 
prayatva of Padas from what Bharata has given as the Guna 
called Ojas ; he then advances the explanation that behind 
Gunas like Ojas, there is a Kavi-vyapara responsible for the 
beauty meant by those Gunas and it is that Vyapara which is 
Laksana ; and that instances of Laksanas cannot be had 
without being mixed up with Alankaras and Gunas. 

^ I p. 386. 

The natural grace of a verse even in the absence of Alankara 
as in the verses of Amaruka is due to Laksana. This is 
the view he often adopts. He illustrates the third Laksana 
called by the verse in the S'akuntala — ‘ ^ 

qg: ’ etc. and makes the comment that there 



is no Alankara in the verse but yet there is beauty in it 
and that it is due to the Laksana called S'obha. 

5T ^T: 5I55[T^- 

3l4^TtJIT, ^ (?) I 

^ 5?h»Ttl I p. 387. 

That the very Abhidhavyapara of the poet is Lak^na is 
clinched by Abhinava in his exposition of the fourth Laksana 
called Abhimana, by reading that Laksana in the end as 


I p. 387. 

He adopts the eighth view, which is his own teacher’s, 
in his exposition of the Laksana called and in other 

places. Explaining the Laksana called in his illustra- 

tion which involves S'lesa Alankara, he says — 

1 ^IIT; I p. 388. 

Here he adopts the eighth view only slightly. He says 
that the Laksana called Gunakirtana helps Upama and 
S'lesa and that Laksanas beautify even Alahkaras. He 
clearly adopts this eighth view that the further elaboration of 

' Regarding the verse defining this Laksana, Abhinava notes 
both the variants ‘ Dharyamaiia ’ and ‘ VaryamaQa.’ 


manifold Alankaras is the result of their interaction with the 
Laksanas, in a further passage under the ninth Laksapa, 

31SI 1 . . . . 2f«lT 

?T3 ? f% . . . rlrl (f% ?) ^ 

SSUB^Rtf^lT irfoRT: I iP^slq I 

%f][ trfl ^ I 


5[Fr: I TRT 1 ^T 1 ^ 

^ i p- 390-1. 

Whatever beauty in a Kavya is not due to either Guna 
or Alahkara is due to Lak^na. If so, will it not be that 
all Kavya is Laksana ? Yes, says Abhinavagupta. 

c5^%T: ? m I 

p. 391. 

Thus in this passage Abhinava combines his teacher’s view, 
i.e. the eighth with the seventh, reconciles both by making 
them as parts of a bigger and more comprehensive view 
of his. Abhinava opines that Laksana is sometimes natural 
grace and sometimes it adds beauty to Alahkara also. Thus 
he considers it to be more important than Alahkara. 



gi^TRf f| qsnJIH:, 5IfT(3DIT)5^(^) I rTT??^- 

p. 382-3. 

In the explanation of the sixth Laksana, Protsahana, 
Abhinava again adopts his teacher’s view and points out 
how this Laksana adds Vaicitrya to Aupamya and Aprastuta- 
pras'amsa. Under the tenth, Atis'aya, he says that it is 
this Atis'aya Laksana that makes the Atis^ayokti Alah- 
kara. The ‘ Kavivyapara ’ view recurs under K^ma, the 
twenty-eighth ; as the very ‘ Kavya s'arfra the same view 
recurs under Anuvrtti, the thirty-first and Yukti, the thirty- 

Thus Laksanas are important because they are elaborately 
enumerated at first, they are the very Kavyas'arlra,^ or the 
Kavivyapara or Abhidha of the poet, they are ele- 
ments of natural beauty even in the absence of Alankaras, 
they are the factors that multiply the three Alankaras 
into many, and they beautify sometimes even Alankaras. 
Through the first Laksana Abhinava forces the idea that 

* It is this idea of Laksana as the Kavyas'arira itself that 
Abhinava holds at the end of his commentary on the previous 
chapter, while commenting on the text, ^ 

which introduces the topic of Laksana in the next 
chapter. Abhinava here works out a metaphor with a beautiful 
house, the metre being the ground, Laksana, the building of the 
house itself, Alafikaras and Gunas, the paintings etc. 

^ (?) 5i«w ^ ijpr- 

I ’ P. 377. 


Laksana is also a principle of and under the last, he 

speaks of Aucitya as the purpose of Lak^na. 

1 p. 403. If Laksana should be so elastic or so 
comprehensive, we would have not 36 of them only, but 
an infinite number of them. Quite so replies Abhinava- 
gupta. The Laksanas are and in their combi- 

nations with each Alankara, they produce many varieties. 
In combining among themselves also they breed number- 
less varieties. Thus infinite are the varieties of beautiful 
expression in kavya. Abhinava says under the thirty-first, 
Anuvrtti : 

^ I 

55^01 f| 1 

I p. 401. 

In this passage Abhinava gives a new and clever idea. An 
Upama is an Alankara. It is expressed and has its S'arira. 
That S'arira itself has to be beautiful. The beauty of the very 
expression of Simile or other Alankaras is Laksana. In his 
Dhvanyaloka locana, Abhinava has pointed out that Alankaras 
have to be beautiful and that expressions like ^ ^ do 

not become Alankara because of the absence of a basic beauty 
which is necessary. This basic beauty he ascribes to Laksana 
in the Abhinava BhSrati in his exposition of the Upama 



I p. 405. 


Dandin, as he was going, cast a remark on Laksana. 
For him the whole Kavyaprapanca is Alahkara-Brahman. 
Naturally he considered Laksana to be Alahkara. When he 
considered even the Sandhyahgas and the Ahgas of the 
four Vrttis, Kais'ikI etc. as Alahkaras, it is no wonder 
that he considered so this concept, Laksana, which has so 
much in common with Alahkara. He says — 

11 II, 366. 

The Laksana referred to in this verse is Bharata’s Laksana. 
Tarunavacaspati says — I 
^ 1 Alahkara in Dandin is a wide berth which can con- 
veniently accommodate these and many more. 

The Das'arupaka mentions the Laksanas at the end and 
does not treat of them since it includes them in Alahkaras and 
Bhavas. This attitude is very logical, since many of the 
Laksapas are either Alahkaras or Bhavas. The text says — 

' The text of Bharata here is Jlfl 
and ‘ Bandha ' here meaning merely ‘ composition * can hardly bear 
the interpretation Abhinava puts on it. 



The Avaloka adds — 

»TTa(t^ =^’ ^- 

?I?rf*lkTci, ^ I 

Bhoja, in his S'rhgaraprakas'a (Vol. II, Chapter 12, p. 450,. 
Mad. MS.), while dealing with the technique of the drama,, 
says first that the drama shall have 64 Laksanas. 

55^^^ 3^ f #f I 

He comes to the topic, Laksana, on p. 524, first enumerates 
64 of them, then defines and illustrates each. Bhoja is 
given to elaboration and he takes up some of the Anustubh 
list of 36, some of the Upajati list of 36, adds a few which 
are his own and thus makes a good number of 64. Certain 
numbers have a destiny and in Bhoja’s bulky writings, in 
his classifications, such numbers appear often. This chapter 
is called ^ ^ dealing with 4 sets of 64 

Angas of the Prabandhas. Thus it is out of an artistic sense 
of uniformity that Bhoja made Laksanas also 64. For Bhoja’s 
list, see table at the end. 

Bhoja is acquainted with both the lists of Bharata. His 
definitions are mostly reproductions from Bharata with slight 
variations. From the name of the chapter we are to take 
that Bhoja considers Laksana as a 3^5=^!^ like 
with which it is clubbed together and described. He 
generally says that they are for beautifying the work* 
At the end of his treatment of the Laksanas he says of 
them — 


R5r?t?^T^DTTq rf3|; II 

Bhoja takes Laksanas'^ as features of dramas only. He tries 
to give us some distinction between the Laksanas and the 
Sandhyahgas. After illustrating the first Laksana called 
Bhusana, which is speech full of Alahkaras and Gunas^ 
he says — 

?S5?TT I ^ 3'JIT^^KT 2T«IT?TWifjftqT: I 

.... ? I 3 

I ■ 

The text is incomplete and corrupt. Bhoja means to say that 
just as the first Laksana involves Gunas and Alahkaras, so also 
the others and it is this that differentiates Laksanas from Sandh- 
yahgas which do not involve Guna or Alahkara. This expla- 
nation is clever and shows us how many Laksanas look like 
Alahkara but is not wholly sanctioned by Bharata, who 
described Bhusana alone as being ' profuse with Gunas and 
Alahkaras ’ and never meant the extension of its nature to 
the other Laksanas also. No doubt, some Laksanas definitely 
mention and involve a few Alahkaras. 

S'aradatanaya, in his Bhavaprakas'a, deals with Laksanas 
in Chapter 8. In the Natya S'astra we see the Laksana des- 
cribed as Bhusana. 

1 ^ So some writers have called the Laksanas Bhu- 
§ana also. There is propriety in this name from the point of 
view of function, since all the writers say that Laksanas adorn 
the Kavya. S'aradatanaya calls them Bhusanas and gives 



them as one of the items in the technique of Nataka. He 
says — ^ ^ ’ t ‘36 Laksanas also But while 

enumerating and defining he gives 54. At the end again he 
mentions their total number as 64 and calls the Laksana here 
‘ p. 224. Gaek. 

edn. Thus, as in other places, the text of S'aradatanaya 
causes great confusion. S'aradatanaya’ s list contains Laksanas 
from both the lists. A few of them are new. 26 are from 
the Upajati list and 14 are from the Anustubh list. The 
remaining 14 in the total of 54, are new. They are — 

3n«R:, 3f%:, ^51: and I 

Two of these, and are found in Bhoja’s list. 

“Naya may be Bharata’s Anunaya and Parivada may be 
Bharata’s Parivedana or Paridevana. S'aradatanaya’s defini- 
tions of the Laksanas are most of them brief adaptations of 
Bharata’s definitions. 

Jayadeva’s Candraloka is the only work on poetics which 
treats of Laksanas along with such topics as Guna and 
Alankara. It is curious how Laksana found its way into 
this work of later times, not dealing with dramaturgy. Jaya- 
deva is aware of the topic of Laksana but is not sure of 
its nature or place in Kavya. Even among the Laksanas, he 
gives with definitions and illustrations, only a few. Mayukha 
3 of the Candraloka gives the following Laksanas : — 

and — all of the Upajati list. It is 

remarkable how Jayadeva missed the very first Laksana 
called Bhusana and the no. 36 also and gives only 10. 
Jayadeva’s definitions of these are concise and more definite 



than those in Bharata and when we read these together 
with their illustrations, we cannot miss the fact that it is 
not very far from Laksana to Alahkara. In the last verse 
he briefly indicates the nature of Laksana and says that 
Laksanas like the above given ten, are many. 

Just as Mahapurusas like kings have the Laksanas, a gold- 
bright forehead etc., Kavyas have their Laksanas. Vaidya- 
natha Payagunda, in his commentary on the Candraloka, 
says in an earlier context, that the Laksanas are Kavya 
Jnapaka, an attempt at explanation which does not carry him 
or us far. 

Again, if we go through the 5th Mayukha and its list 
of Alankaras, numbering hundred, we find there, besides 
and other names, associated in Bharata 
with Laksanas, which must have very early passed into the 
fold of Alankara, some of the above given ten themselves 
are counted as Alankaras. Thus we have 

arid Among these, the illustration for 

alahkara in the Kuvalayananda is an adaptation 
of that given for the Laksana of the same name. The 
same illustration — is given for 
both and 

S'ihgabhupala also calls the Laksana, Bhusana. (R.A.S. 
chap. Ill, pp. 247 — 264. Triv. ed.) He considers them as 
beautifying elements of the plot of the drama. 


He completely follows the Anustubh list with this minor 
difference that he reads %?[ as and gives the synonym flgC- 
for Bharata’s Rpi S'ihgabhupala takes Bharata’s 

own definitions and compresses them in half verses. In 
some cases, as for instance in the definition of he is 
more definite than Bharata, by restricting a comprehensive 
idea to a particular case. His definitions of 

are reproductions of Bharata’s verses. 

Vis'vanatha, in chapter six of his S'ahitya darpana, 
treats of Laksana. He gives the 36 of the Anustubh list 
with this difference that he gives Sanksepa newly in the 
place of Ksobha. Some of his definitions of these are succinct 
adaptations of Bharata’s, while some are reproductions of 
those of Bharata. He points out their existence in dramas 
with illustrations. He realises the logic of the attitude of the 
Das'arupaka but is more loyal to Bharata, for the sake of 
whose words he takes that there should be 36 Laksanas in 
dramas. He says in the end — 

Besides these 36 Laksanas, Vis'vanatha has another set of 
similar items which he calls Natyalankara. They are 33 in 
number. When we go through this list we find that most of 
them are the Laksanas themselves of the Upajati list. 
Thus we find here 311^1:, JRqE:, 3q- 

qf^:, qpsn, 3ip?qiqq:and 

12 from the Upajati list of Laksanas. While dealing with 
Laksanas in that same name he used the Anustubh list with 
a small difference. He left out and had in its place 



The Ksobha left out there has entered this list of 33 Natya- 
lahkaras. The remaining 20 of this list are not available 
anywhere in the Natya S'astra. Among those Laksanas of 
the Upajati list which" are not common to the Anustubh list 
also, there are yet 

and seven, which are not taken at all. 

The first writer who is now known to have introduced new 
Laksanas is Bhoja. In his list of 64 which contains all 
the 36 of the Anustubh list and a few of the Upajati list, he 
introduced 12 new Laksanas, 

and Of these 12, and are the only two 

found in S'arad,atanaya’s list of 54. It is quite likely the text 
is not complete and S'aradatanaya who numbers Laksanas in 
the end as 64, took more of the above 12 of Bhoja. Vis'va- 
natha follows S'aradatanaya and takes the following of 
S'aradatanaya’s new Laksanas, 

and numbering 9. 

The remaining eleven in the 20 are new, found only in 
Vis'vanMha. They are 

qrficqq, and 

5FIII . It is likely that some of these are really S'arada- 
tanaya’s, ten of whose 64 are now missing in the text.^ Of 
these is said to be by Vis'vanatha. If so, 

it is not different from Bhoja’s which is 

explained as is the same as Bhoja's 

is unnecessary reduplication for it is described just as the 
other Natyalahkara called which is a Laksana in 

Bharata’s Upajati list. There does not seem to be any 

' Gaek. ed. pp. 223-226. 



distinction between and is nothing^ 

but Bhoja’s mf^t. need not be a separate Natya- 

lankara, since he has already given a Laksana called 

Why is it that Visvanatha made two separate topics as 
Laksanas and Natyalahkara and how ? The materials for him 
are the 2 sets of Laksanas in Bharata and those in Bhoja and 
S'aradatanaya. Visvanatha took the Anustubh list to represent 
Laksanas and made out a 33 from the Laksanas of the 
Upajati list and of S'aradatanaya’s list and called the latter 
Natyalahkara. Visvanatha perhaps wanted to stick to the 
number ‘ 36 ’ given in Bharata. S'aradatanaya says at the end 
of his treatment of Laksanas — 

This use of the words ‘ Alahkaras of Nataka ’ gave a con* 
venient title under which, with a claim to be more neat and 
to have introduced a new item, Vis'vanatha could put all the 
other Laksanas.^ Jagaddhara who takes this name applies it 
to Laksanas themselves which will agree with what S'arada- 
tanaya has actually said. Further Vis'vanatha seems to have 
thought that he could easily interpret the word Alahkara in 
the following verses of Bharata which he quotes Here, as 
Natyalahkara, whereas, it refers only to figures of speech. 

* Matrgupta seems to be the first to speak of the Natyalahkara. 
We see it mentioned in his definition of Nataka, as also the Laksana 
under the name Vibhusana, as quoted by Raghavabhatta in his 
commentary on the Sakuntala. 

srm n Kale’s ed., pp. 5 and 6. 



Vis'vanatha realises also that Natyalahkara is not much 
different from Laksana and that both again, to speak boldly, 
are unnecessary, since they turn out to be either Bhavas, 
Alahkaras or Sandhyahgas. 

Talking of the function of Natyalahkara he says — ^ ^TI^- 
which vague description is further argument for 
what we have said just above. 

Taking Laksana as a feature of drama only is a view 
narrower than the one attached to that word. Bhoja, S'arada- 
tanaya, S'ihgabhupala and Vis'vanatha have narrowed it 
further by mentioning them only in Nataka, the first and 
best form of drama. Raghavabhatta in his commentary on 
the S'akuntala criticises Dhanika for the inclusion of the 36 
Laksanas in Alahkaras and Bhavas. He quotes the authority 
of the Abhinava bharati for proving the difference of Laksana 
from these and promises to indicate the Laksanas in the 
S'akuntala in the course of his commentary. The list of 
36 Laksanas is quoted by him from Matrgupta. This long 
passage and discussion on Laksana is found only in the 
Nirnaya Sagar edition of Raghava Bhatfa's commentary and 
of the S'akuntala. The edition of Mr. Kale, without any 
discussion at all, points out the first Laksana called * Bhusana ’ 



as being present in the portion up to the verse of Act I 
^ ^ etc. Raghava Bhatta is not so enthusiastic 

over Laksana as he goes further, for he points out only 
nine of them in Act I, none in Act II, only two in Act III^ 
none in Acts IV and V, only one in Act VI and only two 
in the last Act. These are the Laksanas he points out — 


and sqgqq:, 

numbering fourteen, all belonging to the Anustubh list. The 
definitions he gives for some of these are from S'ingabhupala. 
These Laksanas he points out just in those places which 
S'ingabhupala himself has given as illustrations. 

Jagaddhara in his tika on the Malatimadhava indicates 
four Laksanas in Act III and two in Act IV. He gives their 
definitions which resemble but are not exactly those in 
Bharata. These six are 

and These are from both the Anustubh and the 

Upajati lists. He calls them Natyalankara. 

Rucipati, in his commentary on the Anargharaghava,. 
points out two Laksanas in Act IV, calling them by the name 
Natyalankara. These two are and (p. 157 and 

p. 182, Nir. edn.). He also quotes definitions for these two 
under the name Bharata, but the definitions are not from 
Bharata. The second, is no Laksana in Bharata. Bhoja 

is the first to give it. Thus Rucipati follows some unknown 
writer who followed Bhoja but substituted the name Natyalan- 
kara for Laksana. 

Rajanaka Ratnakara, in his insatiable love for S'lesa,. 
introduces the Natyas'astra very often in his Haravijaya. In 
the penultimate verse (57) of canto XXI he describes a 
Nataka, through where he mentions Laksana. 



5r%g¥lTIF^q^ | 

It K. M. edn., p 286. 

Rajanaka Alaka says in his commentary here — 

STWTfJI qftq^: .... 

qft»?iq5TT’ fcTIT^2I:[l] =q3':^f5(;) ^^Tf&l(l) (^^oufJ}) ‘ fq^iqoi 

^TS^Isqq^T^aiTq^Tf^ I 

Ratnakara refers to Laksanas as a feature of the Nataka. 
Alaka follows , the Upajati list. We cannot get much out of 
his vague explanation of the nature of Laksanas as 

; but we see that he followed Bharata and held 
them as features of Kavya and not of Nataka only. 

Bahurupamis'ra, commentator on the Das'arupaka, a 
writer later than S'aradatanaya, speaks of Laksana twice ; 

(a) Commenting on Das'arupaka III, 32-33 : 

qi i 

Dhanika says : S8JCTI; 3jqilIT^f5^: | 

Dhanika takes Alahkara in the text as Upama etc. But 
Bahurupa takes Alahkara also as Natakalahkara, Atis'aya 
etc., and Laksana as the concept of the same name. 

:jqqT3:q^S^fHT; 1 3lf^5iqT# | ^ 

!^T^q^q?sFci^qT5iiTgqTqTq^qq5q?:T^fq i 

P. 35, MS. in the Madras Govt. Oriental MSS. Library. 

(b) At the end, the Das'arupaka says 

etc. Here Bahurupa gives the Laksanas, Bhusana etc. and 



says that, similar to the Laksanas, there are also others 
called Natyalahkaras. 

Thus Bahurupa has two sets, one called Natakalahkara 
and the other Laksana. The MS. gives a list of Nataka- 
lahkaras and Laksanas and there are gaps in the MS. 

HT^T, . . . RlfH:, 

gonf^TT^:, . . . ST^t:, 3TTWH:, W:, 

^n=ERT, (^w), ^r^- 

RfRI:, 5l\»TT, jpi- 

3TT^?Tm, Ti^R:, goiT- 


^’R, f 

The text unfortunately stops with ‘ Iti. ’ Bahurupa’s position 
regarding Laksana is similar to that of Viswanatha and it is 
most likely that S'aradatanaya’s fuller text is the basis for 
Bahurupa whose two lists contain Laksanas of both the 
lists in Bharata and those found newly in S'aradatanaya. 
See also my article on Bahurupamis'ra’s Das'arupavyakhya, 
J. O. R., VIII, pp. 333-4. 

There is evidence to show' that the Sahgitaraja of king 
Kumbhakarna dealt with the Laksanas. In his comments 
on S'!. 12 of the last canto of the Gitagovinda, Kumbha says 
in his Rasikapriya : 

301^^^ RT^^R: I — 



Gunakirtana is a Laksana of the Upajati list in Bharata. 
Kumbha’s definition of it follows Bharata’s. It is not known 
how many Laksanas Kumbha recognised and whether he 
took also those of the'Anustubh list. See Annals B.O. R. L, 
yol. XIV, Pts. 3-4, my Note on the Sangitaraja — (pp. 261-262). 

Sahityasara of Sarves'vara, a work (Madras MS.) in 631 
Anustubhs treats of the Laksanas in Ch. Ill (p. 28). It gives 
in Arya verses the 36 Laksanas of Bharata’s Upajati list : 

^ofigqT^; n 5 

<T«rT^T'T; I 2=36 

^TTZ^r 1^: II 

Each is defined in a half-verse. The definitions are note- 
worthy, being original though untrue in some cases. Bhusana 
for instance is defined as an Alamkara-dominated expression. 

Aksarasanghata is defined as Vamana’s Arthaguna called Ojas, 
the Praudhi of the variety called ‘ condensed expression ’ — 
^ qcTlfiiqi I 

The Sahitya mlmamsa (TSS. 114) says that some 
speak of 36 Laksanas in a Kavya, similar to the Samudrika 
Laksanas in a man, but these are included in the other 
already accepted concepts. The work here gives the Upajati 



list and reproduces Bharata’s definitions of the first three 
Laksanas. (pp. 117-8.) 

Acyutaraya, a modern writer, considers Laksana as one of 
the six Gunas of Kavya in his Sahitya Sara. Acyutaraya has 
a new conception of Guna, which is like the Alankara of Bhoja. 
Under it come Rasas, Vrttis, Ritis and Laksanas. 

I S'l, 10, Ch. I, p. 8. 
in ^3111 : II 

The Laksanas mentioned here include Bharata’s Laksana, 
for the commentary says: 

moTi^i— 1’’ p. 9. These are called Gunas because they are 
^ Rasikahladaka 

At the end of the chapter on Gunas (7th), the work says : 

^T5'^5 ^3 I 

sn^ccifq gfiTlR^T II 

’TT'f^T^Ra ?TJTTN: ^ I 

^ II S'ls. 207-8. 

Com. I RTf^f^flTrl^^OTT- 

^1^^: I ^ 


3fT%OTRf5iM %f^ 

This is a strange conception of Laksana. Acyutaraya knows 
Laksanas only through the Candraloka. But while the Can- 
draloka gives ten, Acyuta chooses only two from them. These 
two Laksanas, Aksara samhati and S'obha, the three Pakas, 



Gambhirya, Vistara and Riti which are three S'abdagunas of 
Bhoja, S'lesa, Samata, Sukumarata, Madhurya, Udarata, 
Preyas, Samadhi, Sauksmya, Sammitatva and Ukti which 
are ten Arthagunas of Bhoja, — these are put together into a set 
of 18 items and meaninglessly labelled as the 18 Laksanas. 
See Sahityasara, pp. 353-4, N.S. Edn. 


Now, coming to Bharata’s own idea of Laksana, — he says 
after treating of the metres — 

In the end he says ‘ ^11 ’ and 

Again he says : 

From these we are sure that Bharata meant Laksana as 
Abhinava and Tauta took it, to be a feature of Kavya in 
general and not of drama only as all the above mentioned 
writers on dramaturgy took it. Bharata meant it to be on a 
par with Alahkara and Guna as a feature of Kavya in general.^ 
The second idea that we cannot miss in Bharata is that 
Laksanas, though different from Alahkaras, are themselves also 
another species of beautifying factors. In this capacity they 
are called ‘ Vibhusaiia 

' m I ’ ‘ I I ’ 

' Though, while defining the Laksanas individually, Bharata 
occasionally uses the expression ‘ Natakas'raya See the 
definitions of Prapti alone in the Anustubh list, and of Akhyana, 
Prapti and Upapatti in the Upajati list. 



Bharata does not illustrate the 36 Laksanas, as he does 
the Alahkaras. Nor does he make any attempt to differentiate 
them from Alahkaras. He gives only three Arthalahkaras, 
Upama, Rupaka and Dipaka. He indicates 5 sub-classes of 
Upama. Bhatta Tauta has taken that the manifoldness of 
Alahkara is achieved by combining Alahkaras with the 
Laksanas. For instance, he says that the Upama called 
is got by combining the Alahkara Upama with the 
Laksana called • that is got by com- 
bining and the Laksana called Such ingenuity 

is all Tauta’s own. Bharata does not indicate this. He 
simply says that he has pointed out five kinds of Upama 
and that the intelligent must take other varieties from Kavya 
and Loka. 

^ II 

Nor in his definition of does Bharata indicate 

anything like what Tauta has said. Bharata really does not 
propose to himself the task of distinguishing the concept of 
Laksana from Alahkara. From what we see in the chapter, 
i.e. the 17th, in his time, the concept of Laksana had much 
development, while that of Alahkara was in its infancy. The 
fecundity of the latter that produced in course of time a breed 
of more than a hundred Alahkaras is not seen in Bharata. But 
many of these later Alahkaras have their counterpart in Laksa- 
nas. The Lakanas had developed separately as adorning features, 
independently of Alahkaras, and in themselves they constitute 
a double personality. When we critically examine the 36 
Laksai;ias, they fall into two classes. One class of them looks 
like Alahkara, being mere turns of expression. As a matter of 


fact, we have actually Laksanas with the names of some of the 
later Alahkaras themselves. For example, 

3Tra?iq:, and %5T:. 

There is also It is another matter that the definitions 

of these are not exactly the same as in later Alahkara works.. 
Besides, the two Laksanas and involve 

Aupamya and Sadrs'ya. Aksarasahghata and S'obha involve 
S'lesa. The definition of contains the mention of 

and as part of that Laksana. In their definitions, 

and involve Sandeha and Ullekha. The definition of 

glfn makes it the 


snft ^T^Tfq !1 

The Laksana called 3Tfi[5JTq contains 

The Laksana called is quite different from the 

Alahkara of that name. Les'alahkara is thus defined by 
Bhoja — 

qj 301^1 1 

^ ^TF^T n 

The Laksanas called Gun^ipata and Garhana (Karya in 
the Upajati list) correspond to this Vyajastuti. They are 
thus defined ; 

SDTT^TT^ JTf^ %?T^f II 

‘ Protsahana, Gunanuvada and Hetu of the Upajati recension 
involve Aupamya. 



3iiiTfriqraT^ ^msT n 

The Laksana called ^5T is said to be a clever speech 
suggesting through the mention of a similar thing — 

The Laksana involves the Alahkara 

The Laksana called ?g becomes f^g in Bhoja, S'aradatanaya 


and Vis'vanatha. As Bharata has described it, it is only 

The Laksana called is an element which has 
been associated with many fFI^T varieties of Alahkaras like 
etc. The Candraloka actually mentions Mala as an 
'element helping many Alahkaras. 

I V. 121. 

We can see the value of Bhatta Tauta's suggestion in 
such cases. The Laksana called has in its definition 

the word ^ ^ and is actually the of later 

literature, i.e. 



looks like and ^4 is nothing but 

or =^13. Thus, Laksanas of one class are clearly 
Alahkaras or approximations to Alahkaras or light shades of 
Alahkaras to be mixed with many a major Alahkara. Abhinava 
realises this when he describes Laksanas as 
and This class of Laksanas is really a supple- 

mentary list to the three Alahkaras of Bharata. The seeds of 
many of the later Alahkaras are available among these 



Laksanas. Leaving aside the late stage represented by the 
Candraloka in which Laksanas like and 

have become Alahkaras, we can take that, very early, 
some of the Laksanas passed into the fold of Alahkara. 
Bhatta Tauta’s view may suggest this historical fact. We 
have other clear evidences on this point, a Laksana of 

the Upajati list, is an Alahkara in Bhatti and we can see it in 
its transition from Laksana to Alahkara. Bhamaha mentions 
indifferently that it is an Alahkara according to some (III. 55). 
Similarly a Laksana in both the lists of Bharata, can be 

seen in its stage of transition into Alahkara in Bhamaha and 
Dandin. Bhamaha refuses to accept it as Alahkara since 
it is devoid of -Vakrokti (II. 86). Some pre-Bhamaha writer 
must have made it an Alahkara. Bhamaha points out that 
only definite and remarkable turns of expression must be 
named Alahkara. But soon, since it was the palmy days of 
Alahkaras when many things entered its fold, we find Dandin 
asserting that is a great Alahkara, is an 

Alahkara, firmly established, in Dandin. But poor Hetu had 
a chequered career \ The name Natyalahkara might have 
also helped some of the Laksanas to become Alahkaras. The 
evolution of Alahkaras from three in Bharata to what we have 
in Bhamaha is an interesting study but the gap is all darkness. 
We feel that in that stage of the history of Alahkara, the 
concept of Laksana and the merging of most of it in Alahkara 
is a big chapter. 

But we must be clear as regards this point : in the first 
class of Laksanas which are mere turns of expressions there 
are various grades. While some are plainly Alahkaras, others 

^ See Udbhata, Rudrata and Mammata ; also the Alahkara 
chapter in my Ph.’ D. Thesis on Bhoja’s S^rhgara Prakas'a. 



have an element of Alahkara in them, the expression as a 
whole being more than Alahkara. 

The other set of Laksanas shows a different character. 
They are not ‘ , 

nfoTH, etc., belong to this class. The Upajati 

list contains mostly Laksanas of this class, , 

3TI^5=a[?lil , ejm, q^raq^J^, stg- 

etc. Most of these are Bhavas or actions 
resulting from certain Bhavas. These would give support to 
the view which takes the Laksanas as minor Saridhyahgakas.. 
But this view cannot hold good regarding the other class of 
Alahkara-like Laksanas. 

Bharata himself seems to be conscious of this double 
personality of his Laksanas when he says at the end of the 
section on Alahkaras — 

Some Laksanas are These are turns of express- 

ion, those of the first class, related closely to Alankara. Others 
are These are related to Bhavas and form the 

second class. Thus the two main lines of thought in the 
given in the Abhinava bharati hold good as regards 
these two aspects of Laksanas. There will be much ‘ Kles^a ’ 
if one tries to make all Laksanas look like turns of expression 
and factors of natural grace, or to make all Laksanas 
look like or The Das'arupaka realised 

these points and included part of them in Alankaras and 
part in Bhavas. 

^ Abhinava has the reading ‘ % and takes it as empha- 

sising the principle of Rasa-aucitya in the use of these Laksapas: 
^ etc. p. 408. 

Table of Several Lists of Laksanas 


Anustubh list of 

Those of the 
A n ii,s t u b h list 
found in the 


Upajati list of 







3. ?Tt*lT 




11. %g: 




22. ?aFd: 

8. ai%: 

29. arfif: 

9. 3?f^RR:(3tr- 

5I2J: — Bhoja) 





14. flife: 




10. ®rfetq: 



15. a^^a: 

18. ?sq;(f#sq,— 




21- tif|a4q: 

22. S'a.) 

New Laksapas of the Upajati 
list, indicating within brackets 
how Abhinavagupta (AG.) in- 
cludes in these, those of the Anus- 
tubh list which are left out. Bh.== 
contained in Bhoja’s list. Sa. = 
contained in S'aradatanaya’s list. 

4 (Bh.) (S'a). 

or ) 

6. a>eTiini (fa# For 

its definition, see Gaek. 
text; the Kas'i text enu- 
merates it, but in its 
place defines fq%qoii 3 [ 
of the Anustubh re- 
cension (Bh.) (S'a.) 

9. (Bh.) (S'a.) 

13. and 

16. (Bh.) (Ba.) 

18. afFRTJiq (Bh.) 

S'a.) (af^fe;) 

19- *11=5^ (Bh.) (S'a.) 


20. (Bh.) 


23. (Bh.) [also called 

JTra# by AG.] (tJTSr) 
52. 31I5Tt: (Bh.) (S'a.) 

27* (Bh.) (S'a.) Gap in 

AG.’s text here. (Garhana 
is included here by AG.) 

46 SOME 



23. 3Trppi; 

28. m (Bh.) (S'a.) 

24. tTT55T 


30. 'JiaRTOH (Bh.) (S'a.) 


3 1 . (Bh.) (S'a.) [also 


called 3?5|^; by AG.l 


32* 3qqf^; (Bh.) (Sa.) 

29. ?,^T 




12. eTf«m 

33. 3^: (Bh.) (Sa.) 




32. — 

34. ^7*1 (Bh.) (Sa.) [also 


called by others. 

33. or 

says AG.] 



35. mm- 

35. 3?g«%f5:, 

or firfs: 

(Once more here sfefe:) 




Total common and 

with the Ann- In the 26th , AG. 

stubh list— 

-17 includes 

New Laksa^ias of Bhoja. 

S^a.= contained in S'aradatanaya’s list. Vis'.—Vis'v'^anatha. 

1. (S'a.) (Natyalankara in Vis^) 

2. (S'a.) May be the correct form of the Paridevana 
in Bharata’s Upajati list. 

3. (3?I^T:) (Natyalankara in Vis'.) 

4. Compare Kapata in Bharata’s Upajati list. 

5. ^if: 

6 . 

7. Natyalankara in Vis'.) 

8 . 



10 . 

1 1 . srfenwij. (g%r3T4gR: Natyalankara in Vis^) 

12. Natyalankara in Vis'.) 

New Laksanas of S'aradatanaya. 

Na. Vis'.=Natyalankara in Vis'vanatha. 

1. "1^: (may be Anunaya of Bharata). 

2. 3tNiw«I . 


4. (Na. Vis'.) 

5. (may be Bharata’s (Na. Vis'.) 

6. (Na. Vis'.) 


8. aim; (Na. Vis'.) 

9. 3f^: 

10 . 

11. 5lf4; (Na. Vis'.) 

New Natyalankaras of Vis'vanatha, names which are not 
Laksanas in Bharata’s Upajati or Anustubh lists, or in those of 
Bhoja and S'aradatanaya. 

1. nl; 

2. aiRl^IT 




6 . 


Note. In Laksattas, Vis'vanatha has a new one called 
instead of of the Anustubh list. This ^¥1: is made a Natya- 
lankara. Certain Laksanas of the Anustubh list themselves are 
made Natyalankara wi^h a slight change in name, e.g. 
and 3q^5liT Jnsiiaf,K: 


Poetry is not mere thought. ‘ While great poetry must 
necessarily embody it, very genuine poetry, at times, may do 
no more than give to the merest airy nothings a local habita- 
tion and a name.’ ‘ Poetry does not reveal truth in logic but 
in light.’ ^ Mere thoughts and emotions are proper subjects 
for the science of psychology etc. Facts, by themselves, are 
unattractive ; sometimes reality appals us ; but poets teach us 
as they charm : 

m ^ II 

— Nllakanthadiksita, Sabharanjanas'ataka. 

Dars'ana has to wait for Varnana.’ It is wrong to regard 
poetry as merely truth or noble emotion. Who can deny the 
validity of the statement — 

^ Quotations of this nature occurring in this chapter are chiefly 
from five works : Raymond, Poetry as a Representative Art ’, 
Lamborn, ‘ The Essentials of Criticism ’, Bain, ‘ Rhetoric and 
Composition,* and Tagore ‘ Creative Unity * and ‘ Personality 

* cI*IT f| ^ I 

55^% SIT^ICJI !I II — Bhatta Tauta. 



Yet, is it poetry ? Are there not hunger and suffering in the 
poor Brahmanas’ plea to the king — 

Yet, the king refused to help them and the story goes on to 
say that the king gave them presents only on hearing the other 
half filled, the story says, by Kalidasa, with the extravagant 
plumes of figurative language. 

True, as Leigh Hunt says, ‘ there are simplest truths often so 
beautiful and impressive that one of the greatest proofs of the 
poet’s genius consists in leaving them to stand alone, illustra- 
ted by nothing but the light of their own tears or smiles, their 
own wonder, might or playfulness’. But, as he himself points 
out elsewhere, ^ in poetry, feeling and imagination are neces- 
sary to the perception and presentation even of matters of 
fact The so-called figure of natural description, the Sva- 
bhavokti, is a plain statement only in a comparative degree. 
Plain fact or feeling is always embellished in some manner 
and given some catching power. Who can refuse to recognise 
the difference between a proposition like ^ and 

this Svabhavokti of Kalidasa : 

— Kumarasambhava, III. 
Even the natural description of a poet has its strikingness ; 
Bana says that Jati must be Agramya, 

(Harsacarita). Bald statements are thus excluded. Bhamahaalso 
excludes ordinariness in expression in his description of poetry : 

=31 1 K. A. I. 19. 

ft ft 



So poetry requires not only fact and feeling but a beautiful form 
also ; it has not only to be useful, but primarily attractive. 
That all poetic expression involves some kind of expressional 
deviation of beauty,* some out-of-the-way-ness, is well brought 
out by the following verse of Nilakantha diksita : 

— S'ivalllarnava, 1. 13. 

This expressional deviation, this striking disposition of words 
and ideas, is Alahkara ; this constitutes the beautiful poetic 
form. It will be easier to dissociate love from its physical 
aspect than to keep the concept of poetry aloof from its form. 

If we try to arrive at a clear definition of poetry with an 
objective differentia, certainly the definition will revolve round 
the concept of Alankara, the word Alaiikara being taken here 
in the widest sense of that term in which Bhamaha, Dandin 
and Vamana understood it. Alamkara is the beautiful in 
poetry, the beautiful form, — (Vamana). Examin- 
ing the field of poetic expression, Bhamaha found Alankara 
omnipresent in it. When we reach the stage of Appayya 
diksita, who has given as many as one hundred and twenty-five 
Alankaras, we see that the whole range of poetry is almost 
‘Vyapta’ with Alankara in general, is ‘Avinabhuta’ with 
Alankara. And to this numberlessness of Alankara, Ananda 
refers to t 

on»PF?R^I?i; (The Locana adds here, | Dhva. A., 

* Cf. Bain : ‘ A figure of speech is a deviation from the plain 
and ordinary mode of speaking, for the sake of greater effect : it is 
an unusual form of Speech Rhetoric and Composition, I. 


p. 88. Mahimabhatta says : ^ ^qi 

I ’ V. V., I, p. 3, T.s.s. ‘Ji^JifoT^TTsofn^ 
ST^fK^qqmri: I ’ Ibjd., II, p. 87. ^ tf^5qiqi:q?rfq 

qq;T55WFiq^lK: l ’ ‘ 'qi^cqu^nc: 1 ’ Commentary on the V.V., 
p. 4, T.S.S. : ‘ aqj =q I ’ Ibid., p. 44. 

Namisadhu also says ‘ cl^T qiqJ^T aiqqqjrn^q?^!- 

S^^Tl 1 ’ Vya. on Rudrata, p. 149. Ananda has this further 

remark—' rirf (?:^t) qi^qf^qi ^q^RR^SSSf rt: 1 ’ 

p. 87. If Alankara is understood in this large sense as 
^emphasising the need for a beautiful form in poetry, it is 
not very improper for the subject of poetics to be called 

Thus, Alankara, properly understood and properly em- 
ployed, can hardly be a subject for wholesale condemnation. 
This is said not only in view of the large sense in which 
we have tried to explain it above. Taking the figures as such, 
the best definition we can give of them is that, in a great 
poet, they form the inevitable incarnations in which ideas 
embody themselves. Says Ananda : 

q?Tqclf?^T I * * > 5^ I 

qT=5qfq^T Rq I— Dhva. A., p. 87. 

Such figures can hardly be considered ‘ Bahiranga *, in 
Kavya, and comparable only to the * Kataka’ and ^ Keyura 
.the removable ornament. Therefore Ananda continues: 
^ rRUT?! ^qt I ’ p. 87. They should properly 

* On the names of the Alankaras'astra, see below. 



be compared to the Alahkaras of damsels which Bharata 
speaks of under Samanyabhinaya, Bhava, Hava etc. and not 
to the Kataka and Keyura. (N.S'., XXII, K.M. edn.)^ 

Ananda says in Udyota II that, though Alahkaras are 
only the S'arira, the outer body, they can be made the S'aririn, 
the soul, sometimes, ix,, when Alahkaras are not expressed 
but suggested ; when simile, contrast etc. are richly imbedded 
in an utterance and in the clash of words in an expression,. 
Alahkaras shoot out. 

—II, 29, p. 117. 

Here Abhinava says: As a matter of fact, Alahkaras are 
external ornaments on the body but can sometimes be like the 
Kuhkuma smeared for beauty on the body, when they are 
organic and structural, when they are 

and Far, far away is the hope to make this Alahkara 

the very soul. But even this is possible in a way, says 
Ananda : just as in the mere play of children, there is some 
temporary greatness for the child which plays the role of 
the king, so also, when this Alahkara is suggested, it attains 
great beauty and partakes of the nature of the soul. 

cfsilfq ^#TT?IT, I 

^ There is the * Alahkara ’ in Music also, with which profitable 
comparison can be made here but for the obscurity of the concept 
in early music literature and the changes in meaning the concept 
uliderwent in its later history. (N.S'., K.M. edn., XXIX, 22-31.) 

* On the greater beauty of the implied or suggested figure 
as compared to the expressed figure, see further Ananda, III, 37,. 
p. 207 and Mahima, V.V., p. 73; 


1 5n55^f!^]^Tfq 

1— Locana, pp. 117-118. 

It must be noted here that Abhinava compares the Sus'lista 
Alahkara to Kumkumalahkarana, and raises it above the level 
of the altogether external jewel worn, the Kataka. Bhoja 
realised the insufficiency of the comparison with Kataka. 
Alahkara as ornament of a woman also was understood by 
Bhoja in a large sense. Bhoja classified Alahkaras into those 
of S'abda, Bahya, those of Artha, Abhyantara and those of 
both S'abda and Artha, Bahyabhyantara. The first, the most 
external, the Verbal figure of S'abdalahkara, Bhoja compared 
to dressing, garlanding and wearing Kataka etc. The third, 
he compared to bath, treating the hair to fragrant smoke, 
smearing the body with Kumkuma, Candana etc. Beginning 
from outside, these are more intimate with the body. The 
second, the purely Abhyantara Alahkaras, the Arthalah- 
karas, Bhoja compared to cleaning the teeth, manicuring, 
dressing the hair itself etc. These last are most in- 
timate ; nothing not forming part at all of the body is 
here superimposed.^ 

sfTHT:, I 

5nftT: — I 

1 5fTllT«F^FT: — etc.— 


'Cf. Abhinava: ‘%qRT«^TOori Sfrtk’ijntt 


— Locana, p. 117. 


Albeit the importance of form, one should not misunder- 
stand rhetoric as poetry. It is possible to sacrifice poetry at 
the altar of figure. There is such a thing as Aucitya, ap- 
propriateness, harmony and proportion, which is the ultimate 
beauty in poetry. The final ground of reference for this 
Aucitya, the thing with reference to which we shall speak of 
other things as being appropriate, is the soul of poetry, Rasa. 
The body becomes a carcass when there is no soul there^ 
when life is absent from it. Of what use are ornaments on a 
carcass ? Nilakantha diksita says : 


— S'ivalilarnava, I, 36. 

Ksemendra, the systematiser of Aucitya, says : ‘ Enough with 
Alankaras ; of what use are the Gunas if there is no life there ? 
Ornaments are ornaments ; excellences are excellences ; but 
Aucitya is the life of the Rasa-ensouled Kavya ’ : 

f% I 

— Au. V. c., 4 and 5. 

See also the Vrtti on these ; also my Ph. D. thesis, chaper on 
History of Gunas, vol. I, Pt. 2, pp. 334-5. 

Here Ksemendra has only amplified Abhinava and Ananda 
who say : 

^ ^ JT «IT%, 3T55- 

I — Locana, p. 75.. 


II Dhva. A., p. 145. 

What is this Aucitya ? It is the clear statement of the 
proper place and function of Alahkara, as of other elements. 

RTflNRf: ^ ^ I 

31^^: I ap^siT 3 

Jf I . . . . 21^15— 

. . . . 

^ sf^g^ 501 •• 11' — au. v. c. 

Thus Alahkaras have their meaning only if they keep to their 
places : 

52WR I 

^ g«n^?n^ II Dhva. A., II, 18. 

Just as a pearl-garland can beautify only a full bosom, and 
otherwise cannot be a beautifying factor, only an Alahkara 

‘ Vide below chapter on Aucitya. 

gonsri i 

f^«i% goisrw: 11 

— Quoted by Municandracar 3 ^a in his Vrtti on the Dharma 
binduprakaraoa, Agamodaya Series Edn., p. Ua. 



appropriate to Artha and through it, to Rasa, can be of any 

11 — Au. V. c. Ksemendra. 

Cf. Bhoja, S.K.A. I. 160 : 

^"TTW 5RJT3JT55 

t etc. 

Ksemendra proceeds to show how some poets have 
observed this rule of Aucitya of Alahkara and how^ some have 
not. He points out the conceptual flaws in the latter, going 
against the main subject and sentiment. The Pratyudaha- 
ranas are cases of abuses in so far as the authors of those 
verses have written those figures with an effort, merely 
because they desired to add figures. When the great poet is 
concentrating on Rasa, when he is a the 

sense of harmony and appropriateness attends on him, innate 
in him like instinct ; there is hardly any room for impropriety. 
But when concentration is on figure, error creeps in. We 
shall consider two examples : The broken minister of the 
Nandas, stealing into the enemy’s city over which he had 
once ruled like a king, looking like a serpent stilled by in- 
cantation consumed by his own 

inner fire, sees a dilapidated garden and describes it : 

irm i 


— Mudraraksasa, VI, 11. 


The plight of the garden resembles his own pitiable state and 
with great appropriateness in the conceiving of the similes, 
Vis'akhadatta has drawn a mere description nearer to the 
context, harnessed it "'for Rasa and heightened the effect of 
the situation/ On the contrary, we shall now cite a verse 
from the Bhoja Campu w^here the poet has created a figure 
not only not in harmony with the main idea and the context 
but also so inappropriate as to make, as Ksemendra says, the 
hearts of the Sahrdayas shrink. 

There is Hetu-Utpreksa here: the poet imagines that Brahma 
presented himself before the Adikavi, as if jealous of the 
appearance of (his spouse) Vam (speech or poesy) in another 
person. As a matter of fact, it is to bless and give Valmiki 
his favour to sing the whole Ramayana that the god descended. 

One can make Alankara render the help its name means 
if he introduces it in such a manner as it will be conducive 
to the realisation of the chief object, namely Bhava and Rasa ; 
that is, Alankara must be Rasabhavapara. That which is 
adorned by an Alankara is the Rasa. Even as the ordinary 
ornament, the jewels, putting them on or laying them dowm, 
suggest to us the mental state of the person, so also does 
figure suggest the Bhava. 

11 — Dhva. A., II, 6. 

* A similar instance of appropriateness of figurative description 
is Baija’s description of the red evening and the approach of the 
night in which the king goes to help Bhairavacarya’s Sadhana 
in the S'mas'ana. 



I ’ — Locana, 74-75- 

Thus whatever, remaining in a functionary place, aids to 
embellish and add to the main theme’s beauty is Alahkara- 
Rasa also can thus be employed as a decorative, as an 
Alahkara, to adorn a Vastu (idea) or Rasa/ 

Raymond ^ expresses a similar opinion on Alahkara : 
‘ The one truth underlying all the rules laid down for the 
employment of figures is that nothing is gained by any use of 
those which does not add to the effect of the thought to which 
they give expression. Language is to express our thoughts 
to others and in ordinary conversation, we use both plain 
and figurative language but when a man wants to give another 
the description of a scene he has seen, he does not catalogue 
one and all of the details of that sight, but brings only his 
own idea of the landscape b}^ adding to such of the details 
as have struck him many more ideas and emotions that 
have been aroused in him. ’ Thus he transports his mental 
image to the hearer and if the representation is comparatively 
plain, we have Svabhavokti. ‘On the other hand,- if he 
realises that it is hard for the hearer to understand him fully, 
he gains his end by repeating the statement, or by adding 
illustrative images to the mere enumeration of facts. ’ [Com- 
pare Rudrata, VIII, 1. 

11 ] 

* Rasavad alankara. Locana, pp. 72, 73, 74. 

^ Poetry as a Representative Art. 


^Thus the poet puts extra force into his language and in 
order to do so, inasmuch as the force of language consists 
in its representative character, he will augment the representa- 
tion by multiplying Kis comparisons : his language becomes 
figurative. ’ 

From the verse of Rudrata quoted above, we see that 
a complex situation or an anxiety for clearer or more effective 
expression necessitates figures. Similarly a thought that is too 
simple, too ordinary or too small to impress or get admiration 
by itself, needs figurative embellishment. We shall consider 
this view of Anandavardhana with his rules for the employ- 
ment of these figures in such secondary and ordinary moods 
and thoughts. Even as he grants high flights in supreme 
moments, he grants even the bare S'abdacitra ample provision 
in Rasabhasa. Heroic deeds, unselfish love, sacrifice — things 
great in themselves appeal to us even when directly expressed 
with minimum figure. But ordinary things must have purple 

All these facts about decoration by figure in poetry are 
realised by Ananda who has formulated rules for the proper 
employment of Alankara. Western writers also have laid 
similar conditions regarding ornament. Pater says : ‘ And 

above all, there will be no uncharacteristic or tarnished or 
vulgar decoration, permissible ornament being for the most 
part structural or necessary He continues : ‘The artist, 
says Schiller, may be known by rathei what he omits and in 
literature too, the true artist may be best recognised by his 
tact of omission. For, to the grave reader, words too are 
grave ; and the ornamental word, the figure, the accessory 
form or colour or reference is rarely content to die to thought 
precisely at the right moment, but will inevitably be stirring a 

* Style by W. Pater. 



long “ brain-wave ” behind it of perhaps quite alien associa- 
tions ‘ As the very word ornament indicates what is in itself 
non-essential, so the “ one beauty ” of all literary style is of its 
very essence and independent of all removable decoration ; 
that it may exist in its fullest lustre in a composition utterly 
unadorned, with hardly a single suggestion of visibly beautiful 
things.’ * The ornaments are “ diversions ” — a narcotic spell 
on the pedestrian intelligence. We cannot attend to that 
figure — that dower there — just then — surplusage ! For, in 
truth, all art consists in the removal of surplusage.’ 

Such strictures had to be passed by Ananda also ; for 
when he was thinking out the essence of poetry, Sanskrit 
poetry had deteriorated into an artificial stage. A blind 
tribe — Gaddarikas — was following a beaten path and was 
hardly proof to errors of taste. Not poetry, but the imitation 
thereof, was being assiduously produced. ^1^4, 

Dhva. A., p. 220.) To guide such poets, 
not gifted with S'akti enough to possess an innate sense of 
Aucitya, Ananda lays down his rules for the employment of 
Alankara. As has already been pointed out, Alankara is 
subordinate to Rasa ; it has to aid the realisation of Rasa. 
It shall suit the Bhava and be such as comes off to the poet 
along with the tide of the Rasa. It shall not monopolise the 
poet’s energy nor shall it be so prominent or continued as to 
monopolise the reader’s mind. Says Ananda : 

*T5l: II ® 

—Dhva. A., II, 17. 

' As if translating Ananda, Tolstoy calls bad Art * Imitations 
of Art ‘ What is Art ? ’ Ch. XL 

* Bhoja also speaks of this Rasak^ipta and Aprthagyatnanir- 
vartya Alankara in his S.K.A. (Ch. V) and S'r. Pra. (Ch. XI). 


(i) Alankara shall be intended to suggest Rasa. 

(ii) It shall be born along with the poet’s delineation of 

(iii) It shall be naturally and easily introduceable. 

(iv) The poet shall not stop to take a fresh and extra effort 

to effect it. 

Such a figure is allowed as proper in Dhvani. This is the 
‘ permissible ’ ‘ structural ’ figure that Pater speaks of. Such 
Alankara is born almost of itself. Such is the poet’s genius 
that w hen the figure is actually found there, it is a wonder. 

Ananda, p. 86. 

Abhinava, p. 86, Locana.) This Alan- 
kara properly functions to heighten Rasa. For instance, ia 
the verse : ‘ etc.’ ‘ the S'atha 

Nayaka w^ho entreats the Khandita Nayika describes her Anger 
as another lover who is dearer to her than himself, though he 
may even fall at her feet. In the last line here, there are 
S'lesa, Rupaka and Vyatireka Alankaras, which, far from 
hindering the realisation of the Rasa ’of Irsyavipralambha,. 
intensify it. 

Though a perusal of an Alankara text-book gives the 
impression that the Alankaras are artificial, elaborate and 
intellectual exercises requiring great effort in turning them, 
out precisely, — things that must rather be avoided than handled 
w ith all their ‘ chidras ’, the)^ are not really so difficult of 
effecting for a masterpoet. With him, as emotion increases^, 
expression swells and figures foam forth. 

See my‘ Ph.D, Thesis “ Bhoja’s S'rngara Prakas'a ”, VoL I, Pt. 2 , 
chapter on Alankara. Such Alankaras, Bhoja says, cannot be even 
spoken of as having been introduced or added. 

’ See Dhva. A., p. 86. 



3T55^T^T??T^Tfoi ^ ^qTfp%!^: 

1 ' 

— Dhva. A., pp. 86-87. 

We have many instances in the Ramayana where we clearly 
:see this connection between emotion and figure, though 
not as a rule. There is at least a strong tendency to wax 
figurative in forceful situations. The description of lamenting 
Ayodhya on Bharata’s return from the forest and Sita’s condem- 
nation of Ravana on seeing him out of his guise are two 
of the striking examples. There is, further, a tendency in the 
Ramayana to employ figures profusely in descriptions. The 
opening canto of the Sundarakanda contains a figure in almost 
overy verse, surcharged as the canto is with Adbhutarasa. To 
quote only one instance, we shall pick out this description 
of the broken Vis'vamitra from the Balakanda : 



Jra: n 

* Cf. ‘ The more emotions grow upon a man, the more his 
speech ; if he makes any effort to express his emotion, abounds 
in figures — exclamation, interrogation, anacoluthon, apostrophe, 
hyperbole (yes, certainly hyperbole 1) simile, metaphor. His 
language is what we sometimes euphemistically describe as 
‘picturesque’. Feelings swamp ideas and language is used to ex- 
press not the reality of things but the state of one’s emotions.’ 
J, S. Brown, ‘ World of Imagery ^ Quoted by K. A. Subrahmanya 
Ayyar in his ‘ Imagery of the Ramayana’, J.O.R., Madras, Vol. Ill, 
pt 4. 


11— Ra. Ba., 55. 8— 10.‘ 


But there are also places in the epic of high strung emotion 
where figures are not employed at all and the sublimity or 
pathos of the situation {e.g. Rama weeping on the loss 
of Sita in the closing cantos of the Aranyakanda) is left to 
itself to appeal to us with its own grandeur and beauty. 

In Kalidasa, we have many instances of figures rushing 
to the poet’s pen in moments of overflowing Rasa. Every line 
is a figure in Pururavas’s description of Urvas'I who has 
captivated his heart, as he sees her slowly recovering from 
stupor : 

3WT 11— V.U., I. 

And in the Mudraraksasa, we have a similar situation with 
abundant figures. In the glee of his success, Canakya exclaims 
as he hears that Raksasa has come : 

Ill: 1 

RrfWrfscig: H 

— M.R., VII, 6. 

But to write such figures, the poet must be lost in Rasa and 
must have infinite Pratibha. Those who do not naturally get 

Kumbhakonam Edn. 



these figures in such an appropriate manner can employ figures 
effectively if they do so with discrimination, Samiksa. 

^ II 

— Dhva. A., p. 88, II, 18. 

What is this Samiksa ? 


^ ^ Ji|oic2TTnl II 


— Dhva. A., p. 88, II, 19-20. 

(i) Alahkaras must be ancillary, Ahgabhuta. 

(ii) They must never become main, Pradhana or Ahgin. 

(iii) The main theme shall always be kept in view and 
the figure in consequence must be taken and thrown away in 
accordance with the requirements of the main idea. 

(iv) They must not be too much elaborated or overworked. 

(v) Even if they are worked out, a good poet must take 
care to give them, on the whole, the position of Anga only, 
(i) In the verse from the S'akuntala ‘ ^ 

etc.’, the description of the natural acts of the bee^ 
is introduced as Ahga to intensify the chief Rasa 
of S'rhgara. (ii) There are instances in which we see poets 
drifting along in the world of imagery itself without returning 
to the point on hand. The poet begins a figure and does it 
in such a detailed manner that it outgrows its proper limit. 

^ See Dhva. A., pp. 89-94 for the illustration and discussion of 
these canons. 


I ’ — Dhva. A., p. 89, 

I ?l^«r Wl^dl fd . . 1 ’ — Locana, p. 90. 

The illustration for this given by Ananda is the verse ^ 

€fT?I etc/, where the main idea intended to be adorned by the 
figure is lost in the elaborate reaches of the Prayayokta, which 
has overgrown and hid the main idea, (iii) Opportune 
introduction is illustrated by the verse ^ etc.’ 

where S'lesa finds timely introduction ; as Abhinava says, 
this description paves the way for the coming Irsyavipra- 
lambha. (iv) In the verse ^ etc.’, for the sake 

of the main Rasa, Vipralambha, and for the sake of another 
Alankara, namely Vyatireka which is to heighten the Vipra- 
lambha, the figure of S'lesa worked out in the first three lines 
is abandoned in the last line. This illustrates * kale tyaga ’. 
(v) There are instances where Alafikaras are merely touched 
upon and left there ; lesser artists sit to work them out. 
In the verse 


the Rupaka of Bahupas'alatika and Bandha is not worked out 
in any artificial and tiresome manner. If the poet had worked 
it out, Abhinava says, it would have been very improper — 'll?!. 

This verse illustrates ‘ 5Ilftl^l%^f^.’ (vi) 
Such a genius like Kalidasa can work out a figure in full and 
can see that the main Rasa is not only not hindered by it, but 
is actually intensified by it. E,g. Megha. The 



Vipralambha S'rngara of the theme is again brought to 
the forefront in the last line to be nourished by the 

When used thus with appropriateness, Alahkaras go to 
enrich the ideas of the poet and add charm to the diction. 
Of these Alahkaras, we shall here speak in particular about 
a few select ones. Figures can be classified into three main 
classes : (i) those based on Similarity, Upama and all other 
figures involving Upama; (ii) those based on Difference, 
Virodha, and (iii) those based on other mental activities like 
association, contiguity etc. In the third class can be brought 
all the figures other than those based on Aupamya and 
Virodha. Of these, figures involving similarity are the most 
abundant in poetry. ‘ The intellectual power called similarity 
or feeling of agreement is our chief instrument of invention.’ 
‘ Applied literally in the sciences, it leads to unity through 
induction’. In metaphysics, is mentioned as 

means to Tattvajnana and Nis's'reyasa by Kanada. 

The greatness of Upama is thus put by Appayya diksita 
in his Citramimamsa : 


Abhinavagupta also said : “ ^ RSf?*. 

” (Abhi. Bha. p. 321. Gaek. edn. II), referring 
evidently to Vamana, IV. iii. 1, 


Great artists are said to express an idea; great poets are 
explained as inculcating a lesson to the times through their 
work. It is impossible to conceive of such idea and lesson 
except through the principle of imagery ; the great poem being 
something like a big, deep-laid Anyapades'a. In philo- 
sophical teachings, simile plays a very large part. Simile, 
Metaphor, Allegory, Parable — these are often employed to 
inculcate the profound truths of the incomprehensible. As 
Rudrata points out in his verse, etc., the 

Simile is for clearer understanding. But poetic imagery, like 
the variety of life, involves similarity in difference. * 

5^ ^ I ^ ‘ The things compared in a figure though 

differing in kir^d possess an amount of similarity, rendering 
the one illustrative of the other.’ Though ultimately, Simile, 
like any other figure, must heighten the Rasa, there are, 
comparatively speaking, two kinds of this figure, the intel- 
lectual and the emotional. The former appeals to our 
intellect and is designed for that and the latter is used to 
heighten the sentiment. The intellectual simile must have 
maximum catching power ; it must be very striking and at the 
same time, the point of similarity must be relevant ; it must 
not be accompanied by any further details that may distract 
or mislead. 

— Ramayana, Aranya, 8, 8. 


— Ramayana, Aranya, 16, 22. 


These beautiful instances from the Ramayana have the 
required novelty and strikingness. As J. S. Brown ‘ says, the 
pleasure we derive from a comparison — to which we stick, 
however much we may call it odious — is in the sudden 
bringing together of two notions which were a moment before 
unconnected and remote from one another. This element 
of agreeable surprise falls under intellectual appeal. The 
following are two more instances : 

^ m I 
5^^ II 

(?) I 

gST: II 

‘ The matters compared here are so different ; we are startled 
by the ingenuity displayed in bringing them together and the 
effect is an agreeable fillip of the mind, ’ In this respect, 
the danger of abuse lies in the lack of caution in the poet, 
in obscurity and far-fetchedness and the dwindling down of 
the similarity to a single and mere matter of fact point. 
There was a Christmas sales ’ advertisement in a card with 
a dog whose tail had been cut; the dog was looking at 
its shortened tail and underneath was printed ‘ It wili not be 
long now before Christmas, as the dog said about its tail ! ' 
Such instances are effective means for comedy and humour 
and typical instances can be gathered from Dickens’s Sam 
Weller in his Pickwick Papers. 

Coming to the other kind of Upama: Later poets, 
wherever they might have been, however little their knowledge 

‘ ‘ World of Imagery. ’ Quoted by K. A. Subrahmanya Ayyar 
in his contributions on ‘ Imagery of Ramayaija’, J.O.R., Madras, 
Vol. Illf Pt- 


of things or imagination might have been, had a Kavis'iksa 
to supply them with as many moons and lotuses as they 
wanted. Though one had not seen the Himalayas, he devoted 
a canto to its description with all the stock-in-trade and trite 
figures, mistaken informations filling verse after verse. The 
absurdity is seen clearly in the capricious geography of India 
which Vamanabhattabana teaches us in his Vemabhupala 
carita. In Upama, the necessity for novelty is overlooked 
and the anxiety to abide by the qualification ‘ Sammata ’ has 
been the cause of monotony. Anybody could write out a 
hundred verses any day on the sunrise, with the red sun, 
the lotus and the bee and the waning moon, their one single 
feature of looking like lovers being done to exhaustion* 
Appayya diksita defines Upama thus: 

Others also have pointed out the defects in the form and 
content of Simile. Even as it is not poetic figure to be 
comparing things by their Padarthatva, it is not poetic figure 
if it is too trite or too often repeated. Emotional intensity 
and intellectual delights are derived only from such figures 
as are ‘ As'caryabhuta ’ and when there is not enough 
* Viadagdhya ’ in the poet’s Vak, the repetition is intolerable. 
As a matter of fact, many Alankaras have lost their force 
and charm by the one reason of repetition. We do not simply 
say, even in talks, one is named so, but only ^ ^ ; 

so much so, there is almost no effect produced when a poet 
says etc. 

The inferior poets had ample Vyutpatti, unlit by imagi- 
nation. As they were great scholars, we can rarely find a 


technical flaw in their figures as figures. But the place 
where they abused is the same.‘ It is their scholarship that 
bound them to the rule. When they got an imagery on 
their mind, they settled down to turn it into one of the 
Upamagarbhalankaras of the texts; they chose one that they 
had not used up to that time ; in their construction, they 
adopted the same manner of expression of that figure as given 
in the text-book and when there was no ‘ Lingavacana samya * 
for the Upama, they artificially worked out by redistributions 
with the great control over lexicon and grammar they had, 
the conforming form of the figure. Things that are in pairs 
were often brought into singular number as occasion needed, 
and to coincide with a feminine stem, ‘ Padadvaya ’ would « 
become ‘ Padadvayi. ’ Even Kalidasa strains to achieve this 
formal correspondence. He takes the bees in a group in 
feminine gender to bear comparison with a lady, a single 
and feminine Upameya. 

— R. V., VI, 69. 

Let us turn to Ramayana where this weight of Lingavacana 
samya does not hang on the poet : 


— Ramayana, Kiskindha, 28, 58, 
— Ramacandra, Nalavilasa nataka, Act 

vi, p. 77. Gaek. edn. 

* See also 5t»nrr t 

gMwgir II 

— Kumara sambhava, 1. 



II— Kis., I, 10. 


A latter-day poet would have certainly stopped to abide by an 
Alahkarika dictum and by some ‘ Pistapesana * and * Klista 
Kalpana * spoil the simple beauty of the idea presented by 
Valmiki. Dandin says that there are cases where neither 
Lihga-disagreement nor Vacana-disagreement can spoil the 
beauty of an Upama; the Sahrdaya’s sense is the judge ; if 
it is not disturbed, all is right with the figure : 

^ ^ 1 


— Dandin, K.A., II, 51 — 3. 

The following verse also is beautiful, despite linga-vacana- 
vyatyasa : 

P!T: 1 1 

Coming to the manner of expressing the similarity : 
Dandin and others have given some words expressing simi- 
larity, Sadrs'yaviicaka s'abdas. But ingenuity and eccentricity 
have invented other expressions to convey similarity* S'riharsa 
employs these words of comparison — I 
Nai., IV, 8. We have other new and original words to 
suggest similarity — 



etc/ These words are in themselves condensed 
metaphors and it is only after long Rudhi that they mean 
simply ‘ similarity Till then the reader has to pass through 
another metaphor to understand the main imagery. While it 
must be accepted that it is highly diverting to have ever such 
novel words of comparison, one cannot blind oneself to the 
growing Aprasiddhi, involvedness and obscurity. 

Considering the way in which figures are expressed : Even 
very appropriate images are abused by strained expression, 
resorted to with special effort, for the sake of variety as well 
as metrical needs. If the poet gets a simile and gives it 
natural expression which is in harmony with Rasa, there is 
really effect and beauty in its employment. Poetry is after 
all not an argument to be somehow read and understood; 
it is something like a Manjari, as Bana says. It has to leap 
to our heart on even the mere hearing of it. Even as their 
ideas, their expression also has to be beautiful. 

^ m II 

— R.V., VIII, 45. 

The second half here containing the figure is expressed in a 
way that it is fit only to be in Tarka book. Like certain 
words, only certain constructions are poetic. Such expressions 
of Kalidasa himself — ‘ ’ (R.V., III) and 

(S'ak.) are not 

happy at all. S'riharsa often lapses into such wooden 

^ The Lalitastavaratna of Durvasas and the Mukapaficas'ati use 
such expressions profusely but one does not dislike them in these 
two masterly hymns. See also AryastavarSja of a Tanjore Jagan- 
natha (Vani Vilas edn.), another production in imitation of Durva- 
sas’s Lalitastavaratna. 


expressions and his Kavya contains many sentences not more 
poetic than his ‘ ’ Nai., II, 105. 

Next in importance to the simile are Rupaka and Ati- 
s'ayokti. ‘ Simile is used when there is a moderate degree of 
excitation. When this is great, the mind naturally flies to the 
metaphor as a more concentrated form of expression, represent- 
ing many thoughts in a few words.’ When the emotion is 
still greater, we resort to Atis'ayokti and even Atyukti. ‘ These 
metaphors play an important part in the economy of language, 
the coining of metaphors being a means to our stock of names.’ 
Poets create the language of a people. ‘ The element of re- 
presentation, creation on the basis of similarity, is an essential 
principle of all art and it is a factor in the construction of 
language itself.’ Thus is language a book of faded metaphors. 

‘Just as in the preponderance of the didactic and ex- 
planatory tendency, considerations of thought overbalance 
those of form, those of form overbalance those of thought in 
the preponderance of the ornate tendency in which there is 
failure because of an excess of representation. It is simply 
natural for one who has obtained facility in illustrating his 
ideas to overdo the matter at times and to carry his art so far 
as to illustrate that which has been sufficiently illustrated or 
is itself illustrative.’ As Ananda and Abhinava say, ‘ Ati- 
nirvaha ’ is bad. It is not proper to work out in the following 
manner Rupakas fully and often, especially in a situation like 
this full of Karunarasa : 



jpn^iTiWW: n 

— Ram., Ayo., 59. 

This is all the more inappropriate since it is not Kavivakya 
but a Patravakya, words of the dying Das'aratha.^ A similar 
artificial verse is found in Sugriva’s lament over the fallen body 
of his elder brother : 

— Kis., 24, 17, 

The passion for figures makes a poet introduce them in such 
irrelevant places. As'vathaman, in deep grief at his father’s 
death, is made to utter such a complicated expression of his 
sentiment : 

And in Act I, Bhatta Narayana makes Bhima say : 

*1^ ^fT I 

Poetry, being intended for the delight of the imagination, 
must be effective only through hint and suggestion ; and when 

* The author of the Imagery of Ramayana (J.O.R., Madras, 
referred to above) characterises such instances as ‘ Symmetry- 
figures those worked out for symmetry alone. The giving of a 
name to them does not take away their artificiality. 


one makes it a bit of grammar or logic, it ceases to be poetry. 
It is really surprising how there can be any beauty of figure in 
such an unpoetic expression as Parisarhkhya which can never 
be a spontaneous utterance. The following Parisarhkhya is a 
description of the rain season in the Ramayana : 


— Kis., 18. 27. 

It is proper that Kuntaka should reject this * Alankara \ 

From mere Rupaka, the poet’s first move in the world of 
the image itself produces the Parinamalankara, which is 
Rupaka with “Prakrtopayogitva. This figure has been abused 
very much. The poet moves on only in the world of imagery^ 
carried away by suggestions of further images from the details 
of the first imagery. He does not beautify or illustrate the 
main idea which he has now forgotten. 

— Sahrdayananda, L 

The first figure Rupaka suggests a Parinama and that is further 
taken up to a Virodha and the last metaphor here — 

— is wholly inappropriate as applied to the faces of enemies. 
Such verses often become ununderstandable like puzzles, 
three or four ideas intervening between the understanding 
and the Rasa. Mahima says : 

m ... . 

—V. V., I, T.S.S., pp. 17-18. 



The same is the case with Paryayokta,* Preyan and 
Rasavadalahkaras. The king or God is to be praised ; Priti 
for them is the main Rasa of the subject, but a minor Rasa is 
employed to adorn the main one. A far-fetched idea suggest- 
ing some great quality of the king or God (which quality is 
left to hide itself in one small word) is elaborated and the 
whole verse is burdened with a new picture which is a world by 
itself. The verse 

etc. quoted by Appayya diksita in his Citramimamsa as an 
illustration of Uttarottarapallavitabhranti aptly shows how 
poets stray away from the main idea. This tendency is the 
main feature of the vast mass of court eulogies like the Prata- 
parudrlya (the Alahkara work), Pranabharana, Rajendra- 
karnapura etc. When Kalidasa writes thus : 

we have the main idea of the king incessantly doing sacrifices 
given adequate expression, but if we take a verse from the 
Prataparudriya praising the king, we can see the poet rolling 
in the world of images themselves with little reference to the 
king’s qualities. Sometimes it seems that court-poetry will 
praise and pun and work conceits upon Ganga, Ksirodadhi 
and Candra themselves to the exclusion of what they are 
taken to represent, viz. the king’s white fame. 

Coming to Utpreksa, we already saw one instance of a 
bad Utpreksa from the Ramayana Campu, 

^tc., where the poet has gone contrary to the main theme. 
This figure especially shall always be closely connected with 
the main theme and Rasa. 

^ Vide above, criticism of etc. 


— R. V., XIV, 51. 

Here is an appropriate Utpreksa, one in perfect consonance 
with the sentiment ; Kalidasa has heightened the Rasa by it. 
But ingenuity and eccentricity formed the endowments of 
many poets who made conceits far-fetched and irrelevant. 
Not to mention pleasure, even intellectual satisfaction is 
not produced by many Utpreksas of S'rlharsa. The Rasa 
is obscured to a single word. As with hyperbole, so with 
conceits: the departure from truth must not be shocking. 
Bain says : ‘ Tiresome to us at least is the straining of this 
figure in Eastern Poetry He says this of hyperbole and it 
is true also of conceit. It is mistaken taste and scholarship 
that revels in these far-fetched figures. 

f^T ^ II 

— Dandin, K. A., 1. 

Another figure with which Sanskrit composition is 
cheaply associated is S'lesa. As Keith points out, the lexicons 
and the Nanarthavargas did a very bad service in this con- 
nection. It became impossible for a latter-day scholar to 
write except in double entendre and if we take a work like 
Vedantadesrika’s Subhasitanivi, we can rarely find there a 
verse which has not got two meanings. Sometimes we are 
able to set up similarity between both the ideas and some- 
times we are left to satisfy ourselves with the mere pleasure 
of originality and admire the author’s command over the 
language. Often the puns revolve round silly and trivial 


attributes. There are also cases of discord of varying nature 
between the two ideas : the idea on hand, the Prakaranika, 
is Adhika, the other, Nyuna ; the former noble, the latter, 
base. The author of the Sahrdayananda makes a pun upon 
such a trifle of an attribute as the owl having wings. It was the 
boast of authors that they could pun at every step ; it was the 
banner of their talents. Subandhu beats his own Pataha thus : 

m : ll 

So much so that it became not only a possibility or ac- 
complished fact but a practice of great fancy to produce 
■double, triple, and quadruple poems.* 

But what exactly is the place of this figure ? Has it any 
charm to impart to the diction ? It does help Alankara, all 
Alankaras except Svabhavokti : 

1— Dandin. 

Abhinava also points out that it helps Upamagarbha figures. 
Used with restraint, it can be charming and effective. The 
two meanings must be well known ; the figure must have 
come off easily. Bana says ; 1 Harsacarita. • The 

following are two instances of simple and beautiful S'lesa, 
used with an eye to increase the effect of the situation : 


— Ram., Ayo., 41. 12. 

' See my article ‘ Anekasandhana kavyas ’ in the Annals of the 
Oriental Research Institute, University of Madras, Vol. III. pt. 1. 


m 1 

— Ram., Kis., 27. 42. 

Kalidasa, who rarely resorts to this figure, gives a similar 
simple S'lesa in his R. V., Ill : 

fqqoit 39% ?T \\ 

In Bana, we meet with both uses and abuses of this figure. 
As in his life, so in his writings, Bana was exuberant and was 
responsible for excess. He often forgot proportion and in 
Utpreksa, he became endless sometimes, as in that long 
and tiring description of the king’s elephant, Darpas'ata, in 
tJcchvasa II of the Harsacarita. He could deal in pointless 
S'lesas like ^ He was a master of S'abda- 

bhangasdesa, in which the words have to be differently split 
for the two meanings. This Bhangasdesa is denounced by 
foreigners ; but those who have complete acquaintance and 
are familiar with all the nooks and corners of a language can 
understand a Bhangasdesa very easily. S'lesa in general is 
very eflfective in gnomic utterances where they help to nail 
the maxim into our head ; they are equally catching in Catus 
or eulogies. In Catus, the Bhangasdesa also is freely 
employed and in the following Catu, Bhangasdesa is certainly 
very striking : 

When overdone or when handled by lesser artists, the 
Padabhahgas'lesa can become one of the obstacles to 


understanding and realization of Rasa. Anandavardhana 
classes it along with the Duskaras, the Yamaha, the Bandhas 
etc. which have to be avoided during the delineation of Rasas 
like S'rhgara, Vipralambha and Karuna. 

I — Dhva. A., p. 85. 

As compared with this Bhahgas'lesa of S'abda, Arthas'lesa 
is less of an impediment to Rasa ; used discriminately, it can 
help Rasa even. Says Abhinava : 

I ^ qsn 1 

153 5S;, 3 1 1 

Locana, p. 85* 

The next prominent figure which had found a place 
in the Ramayana and had become monotonous in later poets 
is the Samasokti. Poets see the world shaped in beauty* 
To them there is music in the spheres. Words in the 
feminine gender fascinates them. 

tisiT ^ ‘ ^ riR 

— Locana, p. 160. 

3^3, 31^ II 

— Vakroktijivita, 93. 

This employment of Samadhiguna ‘ with which poets, as with 
magic, give life and motion (emotion ?) to every inanimate 
part of nature ’ is praised by Dan^in as ‘ Kavya sarvasva.’ 


?f*TTf^5rfjT qt jpi: | 

n— k. a., i. 

Samadhiguna produces the Samasokti figure. Valmiki has two 
beautiful verses of this class, in the former of which elements 
of Samasokti go to beautify the main figure of Upama. 

^ ^ II — Aranya, 16. 8. 


" — Kiskindha, 30. 46. 

There are some very fine verses of this type in Canto XI of 
the S'is'upalavadha where Magha gives us a description of 
dawn. But soon, poets with neither originality nor restraint, 
began to repeat images ; the same three or four objects, the 
sun, the moon, the PadminI, the KairavinI, the Praci and the 
Pratici diks were exploited for many verses together, the 
points of attraction dwindling to trifles, and with variety 
almost non-existent. Gradually this figure became intellectual 
and njo wonder, it begot the new subvariety called S'astra- 

In Sanskrit Literature, there are some strange metaphors 
at which some English critics evince surprise. As for 
instance, we never have simple Asi (sword), but have only 
Among our own critics, Ksemendra has said — in his 
Aucityavicaracarca — that such a delightful object as moon 
ought not to be conceived as Citacakra. Things repellent 
and terrible by [themselves must never be conceived in 
images of charm and love. But while describing the death 



of enemies, their sufferings etc., the poet does employ such 
imagery, sometimes in callousness and sometimes in the light 
vein. The falling warriors are said to embrace Earth ; and 
Kalidasa describes Tataka passing away into Death’s abode 
as going to her lover. 

S'astrasamasokti has given rise to sheer pedantry. In 
an age of poetry when poets were scholars with Vyut- 
patti in all the Dars'anas and branches of learning, 
nothing could satisfy the writer or reader but high-flown 
rapprochement with S'astraic ideas. Vis'akhadatta’s claim 
for dramatic genius will hardly become less if he had not 
written etc. The 

Naisadhakara’s own Dindima is on this point — 
g i FNcf if ^ fq aii the Dars'anas and the subt- 

leties thereof find a place in his poem. See the Tarka here : 

^ JT IV. 

Naisadha. Surely, poetry must give Upades'a ; the sublime 
thoughts, the deep philosophies — all these the poet must give 
expressioa to ; but this S'astrasamasokti is harldly that. 

The last Alankara that we shall consider here specially is 
that variety of Aprastutapras'amsa or Anyokti called Anya- 
pades'a. If poetry is a criticism of life, Anyapades'a is poetry 
above all other types. In it, the poet points out the flaws and 
failings of men, praises their nobility, bitingly remarks about 
men’s meanness, and makes fun of and satirises every aspect of 
human character. Bhatta Bhallata’s century of Anyapades'a 
has some very fine verses. Nilakantha dTksita’s Anyapades'a 
is unequalled in this branch. In the anthologies, there are 
some brilliant Anyapades'a verses. Most of the other Anya- 
pades'a centuries are trash. A few objects like the sea, the sun, 
the moon, the lotus, the Kokila and the mango in contrast with 
the crow and the Margosa, the rains and the frogs — these 


trite things in some stale ideas were exploited for a hundred 
and more verses. The poet did not pick out any particular, 
subtle or prominent defect of humanity to criticize, or good 
quality to praise. Not feeling anything to write a verse with 
•life, these poets dashed off verse after verse, retailing one 
triviality after another. Anyapades'a is a type of literature 
that can never be written at a sitting, by As'ukavis, but must 
be written on occasions, must be made to accumulate into a 
collection in the course of the varied life of a poet, full with 
experience. If Bhallata wrote the verse on the ignoble Dust, 
which, by the kicking up of the fickle wind, got on the very 
tops of the mountains — ^ ^ 

etc., we know Bhallata felt the poignant grief ; we 
know from the Rajatarangini that in the reign of the mean 
and wicked S'afikaravarman (a.D. 882 — 902), great men like 
poet Bhallata had to earn their livelihood by doing all sorts of 
services, that poets were not given gifts and that peons drew 
fabulous salaries, holding high authority.' 

But small minds — never thought 
themselves ‘ krtartha ’ if they had not finished off in their 
literary career a century of Anyapades'a and immediately 
they made a ‘ Parikarabandha ’ and began exploiting the sun 
and the moon, the etc. 

' Kalhana, R.T., V, 204, etc. 


5r?IT^Tl5^ II 

See also my article on the Bhallata S'ataka in the Annals of the 
Venkatesvara Oriental Institute, Tirupati, Vol. I. No. 1. 


We have thus far considered figures of sense. Poetry, as it 
is required to be sensuous, must be pleasing to the ear also. 
The form of the form itself must be beautiful, must have a 
music and flow. The poet must look to harmony, balance,^ 
and climax in his sentences. Metre itself owes its origin to 
this requirement as also to the emotional outburst. Keith 
grants that the Sanskrit poets have ‘ certainly a better ear 
than themselves (foreigners) to the music of the words’, — the 
appropriateness of sound to suggest the meaning and senti- 
ment. What a verse did Bhavabhuti write ! 

It is really a marvel of sound effect that Bana produces with 
utmost ease : 

’ Harsacarita, I. 

rTSrt I ^—Ibid., III. 

One cannot pick out in Bana ; the reader with keen sensibility 
hears the metallic sound of Airavata striking its tusk on a 
golden pavement, sees the rolling clouds, sees the current 
stumbling and rushing out of each of the three blocking 
words, Grava, Graha, Grama; and in the stillness of his mind, 
he feels the long-drawn silvery voice of female swans, in the 
ponds on the outskirts of the city, slowly dying. Colour, 


smell, sound and touch we are able to directly realize in 
Kalidasa’s verse : 

fjRtW ^ RT^JTNTf^R: 11 

Note especially the onomatopoeic effect of the sibilant 
* S' doubled by the Sandhi, in the expression ‘ S'ipravatah \ 
When Kalidasa said of Aja, ^ \ we see how Aja 

briskly rose up from his bed, unlike the slothful and sleepy ; 
and the sternness of Nandin’s command to the Ganas not to 
give way to Capala, rings in our own ears when we read — 

|— K.S., III. 

Bhavabhuti was as great a master with the words ; surely the 
delicate and charming effects are easy of achievement for him 
when they are needed ; but he discovered the sound effects 
required for the Raudra and Bibhatsa Rasas ; what he created, 
others still live upon. In the S'mas'anahka ot the Malatl- 
madhava, he makes one’s flesh creep, hairs stand on end, and 
feet step back in fright. The owl, the jackal, the water of 
the river rushing through skeletons, — eeriness gathers round 
when we read 

11— M.M. 


Take that verse again in his Mahaviracarita which brings on 
Tataka, the demoness — 


The concepts of Riti and Vrtti in poetics owe their for- 
mulation to a study of these sound-effects. These also count 
for Rasa. It is said that the first gait of the actor on the stage 
interprets him and his character to the audience ; that first 
impression stands to the last. So also the first effect a verse 
on its mere reading or hearing produces, holds the mind to the 
end. For the Rasa to be suggested, even the jingle in the 
sounds or the clash of words is welcome and appropriate 

A further carrying out of these ideas gives rise to the 
S'abdalankara of Anuprasa of different varieties. But Yamakas, 
as Dandin says, are not good — They have 
least to do with Rasa. Anandavardhana lays down the follow 
ing rules for the use of Anuprasa and Yamaka : 



— Dhva. A., p. 85; Kar. 15-16. 

In such Rasas as S'rngara and Karuna, the elaborate and 
artificial figures of sound have no place. Valmiki has shown 
that in a mere description, rhymes find a proper place. The 
famous description of the moonlight night in the Sundarakantja 
^ ^ etc.’ is an example. There is a particular 

* Vide below chapter on Aucitya. Also Dhva. A., III. 


tendency in the Ramayana, which is seen even in the Rgveda, 
to juxtapose similar sound groups, an effect which Kali- 
dasa and As'vaghosa adopted from the master. Valmiki 
writes— ‘ qi?Tr 

etc. These do not do violence to the sense and 
at the same time add to the charm of the diction. Kalidasa 
in his Raghuvams'a especially delights in such innocent 
assonances : 

II — R.V., I. 

— R.V., V. 

etc. R.V., II. 

C/. S'rlharsa, Naisadha, VI, 1. 

5ff^: %t I 

Yamaka differs in that it needs special effort and drags 
the poet away from his Samadhi in Rasa. Not only that : 
However much, like a latter-day adept at this Yamaka-craft, 
a poet may get it easily, it is bad and improper in so far as it 
distracts and stops our minds from proceeding beyond itself, 
our minds which must reach the ‘ Rasa ' obscured in the inner 
sanctum. (See Dhva. A., p. 85). In the ninth canto of the 
Raghus^ams'a however, the theme is only a description of 
summer and the hunt of the king. In such places, Ananda 
allows option in using the Yamaka. But there are descrip- 
tions both by Valmiki and Kalidasa which do not employ 



sound-figures and link every descriptive detail with the context. 
For example, the Vasanta-description opening the Kiskindha- 
kanda and the S'arad-description in Canto IV of the Raghu- 
vams'a. The canonists permit the Yamaka-mad and Duskara- 
mad poets to satisfy themselves in situations of Rasabhasa. 
The Bandhas of various types, Ekaksara, Nirosthya — these 
have nothing to do with poetry. It is regrettable that after 
Bharavi and Magha, these became part of the definition of 

A bad ideal for prose was deduced by the latter-day poets 
from Bana and from such remarks as 

etc. Without endless com- 
pounds and jingle of sounds, no prose was possible after a time. 
So much so that as time passed, certain word groups were 
effected, one word in which would not occur without the 
other. would not come out without and the sound 

of ^3^; will always be introduced as ^ \ All the 

rivers looked ^ ^ In ideas and words, a stock 

diction had grown and poesy became a mechanical craft. In 
his book on Poetic Diction, Thomas Quayle says of the 18th 
century poetry in England : ‘ And the same lack of direct 
observation and individual expression is obvious whenever the 

classicists have to mention birds or animals 

. . . . And it has been well remarked that if we are to 

judge from their verse, most of the poets of the first quarter 
of the eighteenth century knew no bird except the gold finch 
or nightingale and even these probably only by hearsay. For 
the same generalised diction is usually called upon and birds 
are merely a “ feathered “ tuneful ”, “ plumy ” or “ warb- 
ling ” choir . . . ’. How true these remarks are of our 

Sanskrit poets who produced Mahakavyas at the shortest notice, 
who could describe the Himalayas and the Ganges and the 


ocean without seeing them and at whose command there were 
Kos'as and stock expressions and stock ideas, white fame of 
the king like the autumnal moonlight, the blazing sun of 
his prowess, the Vasanta, the Malaya maruta, the 
and so on. To this race of poets apply these lines of 
Keats : 

Beauty was awake ! 

Why were ye not awake ? But ye were dead 
To things ye knew not of, — were closely wed 
To musty laws lined out with wretched rule 
And compass vile ; so that ye taught a school 
Of dolts to smooth, inlay, and clip, and fit. 

Till, lik^ the certain wands of Jacob’s wit, 

Their verses tallied. Easy was the task : 

A thousand handicraftsmen wore the mask 
Of Poesy. 

— Sleep and Poetry. 

To conclude, poetry is neither pure emotion and thought 
nor mere manner. A beautiful idea must appropriately in- 
carnate itself in a beautiful expression. This defines Alankara 
and its place and function. The function of Alankara is to 
heighten the effect ; it is to aid the poet to say more pointedly. 
Whether the poet exalts or does the opposite, Alankara is to 
help him. Says Mahimabhatta : 

— V.V., T.S.S., p. 53. 

As such, these Alankaras should flow out of Rasa. Even as 
emotion is depicted, these must come off, without the poet 
consciously striving after them. They must be ‘ irremovable 


structural, organic : Rasaksipta, Aprthag yatna nirvartya. 
These words of Mahimabhatta are pertinent here : 

^ H II ‘ 

V.V., II., T.S.S., p. 87. 

Figures are thus legitimate, though a proper use of them 
is a gift which only the greater among the poets are endowed 
with. Be it a S'abda-alahkara or an Artha-alahkara, be it a 
sound-effect or a striking turn of the idea, it is not * Bahi- 
rahga ' for Rasa, so long as it is useful for Rasa. Effective 
expression, the embodiment of the poet’s idea, is Alahkara. 
It is not as if it were in some separate place, like jewels in a 
box, to be taken and added. As has been explained in the 
opening part of this chapter, it is the several ways of expressing 
ideas which are to convey the Rasa that are called Alahkaras. 

qTg[%«r 51^;, 5IT=5qfil^qT | 

— Ananda, p. 87. 

— Mahima., p. 87. 

‘ Vide also the Antara S'lokas 76-77 on p. 87, V.V. There 
are very valuable ideas on AlaAkara-aucitya in Vimars^a Two of 
the Vyaktiviveka. 


From Rasa to the musical sound which aids its realisation,, 
poetry is one unity, one complex of rich experience. 

The purposiveness of Alahkara is inevitable like the pur- 
posiveness of poetry. But this does not mean that one 
should judge Alahkara and poetry from a purely utilitarian 
point of view. There is simply beautiful poetry, which is 
nothing but the poet’s desire to express taken shape. ‘ These 
very decorations carry the emotional motive of the poet which 
says “I find joy in my creations ; itisgood”.’^ ‘ When in 
some pure moments of ecstasy we realise this in the world 
around us, we see the w'orld not as merely existing but as 
decorated in its forms, sounds, colours, and lines, we feel in 
our hearts that there is one w^ho through all things proclaims 
“ I have joy in my creation ‘ Nature is the creation of 
God’s Lila, Poetry, of the poet’s Lila. 

‘ Tagore. 




— Dhanapala's Tilakamanjarlf p. 130. 

It is a proper emphasis on both the content, Emotion 
and Thought, and the form, the Poetic Expression,^ that is 
contained in the dictum of the Sanskrit critics that poetry is 
Ukti pradhana or Abhidha pradhana. As Tauta says in the 
well-known passage quoted by Hemacandra (K.A., p. 316), 
one may have the vision, Dars'ana, and be only a seer, Rsi, 
but he becomes a poet, Kavi, only when he renders that vision 
into beautiful language, Varnana. The poetic expression is, 
generally speaking, heightened or made striking by an out-of- 
the-way-ness, which is called Vakrokti or Alahkara. This 
figurative strikingness is pervasive of the whole range of the 
form and helps to detect poetry. When the figurative devi- 
ation from the ordinary mode of speaking is scrutinized, it is 
found that, in some cases, the deviation is more than in other 
cases. Indeed, there are cases which do not show any deter- 
minable and definable deviation, cases which we call ‘ natural 
description’. Such ‘natural description’, when it is of an" 
emotional situation is called a case of Rasa, or Rasa-ukti 
according to Bhoja ; and when it is of anything else or of an 

‘ Says Oscar Wilde in his Picture of Dorian Gray, p. 159 : 

‘ For, canons of good society are, or should be, the same 
as canons of art. Form is absolutely essential to it. 



object of Nature, it is called Svabhavokti. To a survey of the 

history of this concept, Svabhavokti, is this chapter devoted. 

We first catch sight of Svabhavokti in the introductory 

verses in Bana’s Harsacarita : 


Jati is the old name of Svabhavokti. Bana says that Jati or 
Svabhavokti must not be Gramya, ordinary, vulgar, insipid or 
stale. Jati is the statement of things as they are. That is 
what the ordinary speaker and writer make ; poverty of poetic 
power, absence of a wizard-force with words, a sense of bare 
necessity, parsimony in expression, a sense of sufficiency, an 
anxiety to state the bare truth with absolute fidelity to facts — 
these produce a kind of expression which is a bare statement 
of things as they are. Ordinary talk, legal expressions, and 
scientific writings are examples. These two, ordinary bald 
talk and the technical jargon of science, Laukika and S'astrlya 
expressions, are both excluded from the scope of Jati. Jati is 
a poet’s statement of the natural state of things. Hence does 
Bana say that Jati has to be Agramya.^ 

Vidyanatha qualifies Svabhavokti by the word Caru : 

And Kumarasvamin explains that Caru means Agramya : only a 
beautiful statement of things as they are, is Svabhavokti : 

^ I . . . JURf JiRSfR: i 

Pra. rud. Bala m. Edn., p. 297. 

This Carutva and Agramyata are involved in the very conception 
of the Svabhavokti Alankara and hence, Kuntaka’s fear that the 
cart-driver*s talk also will become Svabhavokti is unfounded. 

\ V.J. I, p. 24. 



How this ‘ natural description ’ came to be called Jati is 
a question worth investigating. Perhaps J ati refers to its origin 
from the root ‘ Jan ’ and means the presence or presentation 
of things as they arise or are. Or Jati refers to the general 
characteristics that go to mark out a thing or a class of things.' 
Objects like trees, birds and deer are described, delineating 
graphically the attributes and actions of their class. This 
would form a description of Jati and perhaps this was the 
earliest variety of natural description to be recognized and 
christened, among Alahkaras. As a matter of fact, we find 
Dandin giving four classes of Svabhavokti, — Jati, Dravya, 
Guna and Kriya. .It is reasonable to believe that the first and 
earliest variety, Jati, was extended as name to the rest also. 
Says Dandin : 

I n. 8. 

II II. 13. 

And he illustrates Jati-svabhavokti by a description of the class- 
attributes of the species of birds called parrots : 

^ gqST; l| II. 9. 

We miss the word Jati in Bhamaha but not the concept 
of ‘ natural description ’. In the introductory paragraph, it 
was pointed out that the proper cloak of poetic idea is a 
stricking form, emphatic by virtue of its heightened nature; 
but that within its realm, there are varying degrees of striking- 

* Compare the discu^ion in S'astras about Jati as a Padartha, 
along with Vyakti and Akrti. The view that ‘Jati ’ is Padartha 
was held by Vajapyayana and also by the Mimamsakas. 



ness and deviations from the normal mode of expression ; and 
that, comparatively speaking, there are cases in which such 
deviation is least and which, as a consequence, are called 
Svabhava-ukti, ‘ natural expression Now, Bhamaha pro- 
ceeded with his treatment of poetry thus : Flaws must be 
avoided in expression and though a flawless piece by itself may 
be lovely, because of its natural beauty, yet embellishments 
beautify it, as ornaments beautify even the naturally lovely 
face of a woman. 

ii 1. 13. 

When Bhamaha says thus that a lovely face does not shine 
without ornaments, he seems to contradict himself. The con- 
clusion we can draw from this verse is that though Bhamaha 
emphasizes ornament very much, he is aware of a beauty 
which is natural to a piece of poetry, and which is not born 
of ornament. This ornament or Alahkara is a certain striking 
deviation in expression for Bhamaha. When no such striking 
deviation is recognizable, the expression is no Alahkara. This 
is clear when Bhamaha refutes Hetu, Suksma and Les'a as 
Alahkaras, since, according to him, the expression as a whole 
in these* cases does not show any Vakrokti. 

II II. 86. 

^ Rudrata made such an analysis of figures and his first class 
of Alahkaras forming the Vastava group involves the least figurative 
Vaicitrya. Of the many in this group, the Vastava figure par 
^excellence, as Namisadhu specially points out, is Jati. And it is 
because Jati concerns itself directly with the thing as it is, without 
any great s'abda vaicitrya, that Bhoja counts J ati as an Arthalah- 
Jcara and that, the first. 



If this Vakratva is not to be found, the expression is mere 
‘ news’, mere information-giving ; it is Varta. Following the 
above quoted verse, Bhamaha says : 

qWN | 

ii ii. 87. 

The first line here is an instance of an utterance which as a 
whole, Samudaya abhidhana, is bereft of any Vakrokti ; and 
this is what is called Varta, news. Thus as against poetry^ 
there is set this Varta, which may be insipid Loka Varta or 
technical S'astra Varta. Varta, however, differs from Jati or 
Svabhavokti; for Varta is, to adopt Bana’s language, Gramya 
Jatih. Thus, we have ordinary expression which is Varta; 
then natural poetic expression called Jati or Svabhavokti and 
then Vakrokti. 

If these meanings are not settled thus, there will arise a 
loose use of Varta or Jati. Da^din uses the word Svabhavokti 
or Jati loosely when he says: he refers 

here to Varta only. Similarly Varta also has been loosely 
used as a synonym of Jati. Just after Atisayokti, Yathasam- 
khya and Utpreksa, we find Bhatti illustrating a figure called 
Varta, by a verse describing the mountain Mahendra. 

X. 45. 

This shows that Varta is meant as a synonym of Jati or Sva- 
bhavokti and that in the pre-Bhamaha literature, Svabhavokti 
was recognized by some, some called it Svabhavokti, others 
Jati and still others Varta. Bhatti must be taken to call it 



Varta. The Visnudharmottara, in its small section on Alah- 
kara, calls it Varta : 

In Bhamaha, we find Varta used separately from Svabhavokti; 
he restricts Varta to non-poetic utterances in which there is no 
Vakrokti. Dandin does not mention the word Varta, (amidst 
Alaiikaras) but uses the words Jati and Svabhavokti as synonyms. 

The Jayamangala ^ on Bhatti has an original explanation 
t© offer on Varta, not found elsewhere. It says: 

?TT I — 


(Bhamaha, II, 93.) 


II ^ 

Under X, 46, N.S. Edn. 

In’ Bhatti, the word Svabhavokti is absent. There is 
only Varta, which is illustrated by a natural description of a 

* There is a good amount of difference between the Jayamangala 
and Mallinatha *s gloss on Bhatti on the question, which Alankara 
is illustrated in which verse by Bhatti. 3?^ etc. X, 42 or 43 

is an illustration of Svabhavokti for Mallinatha and of Atis'ayokti 
(what a difference !) for the Jayamangala. If the Jayamangala 
sees Varta in X. 45 or 46, Mallinatha sees Atis'ayokti there. In 
the case of some verses, Mallinatha does not point out any figure. 
And this difference between the commentators on Bhatti does 
not seem to have been pointed out by scholars. 




mountain. From this we concluded that Bhatti must be 
understood to hold according to writers whom Bhamaha did 
not follow, that Varta was synonymous with Jati and Svabha- 
vokti. But the Jayamahgala is a close follower of Bhamaha 
whose text alone it quotes. It explains Bhatti by Bhamaha 
and naturally there is some difficult 3 \ The Jayamahgala 
starts with two definite ideas : (1) that Bhamaha accepts an 
Alahkara called Svabhavokti and (2) that the verse on Varta is 
a verse on an Alahkara called Varta, with an illustration in 
the first line. Hence, the Jayamahgala reads the verse on 
Varta differently : 


Having started with these two ideas, the Jayamahgala 
has to indicate the difference between Varta and Svabhavokti. 
It says ingeniously that there is one major Alahkara called 
Varta which is the stating of things in strict accordance to their 
natural state and that it has tw^o subdivisions, Vis'ista and 
Nirvis'ista. The Vis'ista Varta is called Svabhavokti and the 
Nirvis'ista varta is simply Varta. Bhatti’s verse is an illustra- 
tion of the former. From the Jayamahgala's remarks, we see 
that by ‘ Vis'ista ’, it means the description of one particular 
object with its attributes, and by ‘ Nirvis'ista the description 
of a composite view of Nature ; the former is illustrated by 
Bhatti’s description of Mt. Mahendra with its attributes, and 
the latter by ‘iT^35FcW#i: etc.’ ‘ 

* Dr. S. K. De says (Skr. Poe., I, p. 53) that Bhatti does not 
recognize Svabhavokti. We do not know that, for as Dr. De 
himself points out (p. 52), the Jayamahgala is the guide to 
know what Bhatti recognized and illustrated. According to 



But Bhamaha kept Varta and Svabhavokti separate. The 
latter, he refers to as an Alankara and illustrates. The former, 
he refers to with derision, as a name for insipid detailing of 
some facts, for expressions devoid of striking deviation. 
Closely following, as it does, his rejection of Hetu, Suksma 
and Les'a which do not show any Vakratva, the verse does 
not seem to yield itself to the different reading and conse- 
quent different meaning which the Jayamahgala gives it. 
That the verse mentioning Hetu, Suksma and Les'a and the 
next verse speaking of ^ ^ etc.’ as mere Varta, go 

together is proved by a reference to Dandin where Bhamaha, 
II, 86-87 are taken together. Dandin, in the Hetucakra, 
speaks of etc.’ as Jhapaka Hetu Alankara and 

considers it as * U ttamabhusana ’ as if to spite him who referred 
to Hetu together with Suksma and Les'a as no Alankara at all. ^ 
Thus I am of opinion that the word Varta in Bhamaha 
is no name of an Alankara. Dr. De is of opinion that there 
is an Alankara called Varta which Bhamaha mentions and 
rejects in the passage discussed above. On p. 36 of Vol. II 
of his Poetics, he says that in the second stage of the develop- 
ment of Alahkaras was added ‘ a seventh figure Varta w’hich is 
referred to by Dandin in I. 85 but which is not accepted by 
Bhamaha’. On p. 109, ibid,, he says: ‘With Bhamaha, he 
(Dandin) alludes to Varta (1. 85) which is illustrated by 
Bhafti, but which disappears from later poetics, being included 
perhaps in the scope of Svabhavokti . Mr. P. V. Kane also 
opines that in the passage discussed above, an Alankara called 

Mallinatha, X, 42 (or 43) 31^ etc. is Bhatti’s illustration of 

Svabhavokti ; and in X, 45 (or 46) where the Jayamangala sees 
Varta, Mallinatha sees Atis'ayokti 1 

‘ From this we have to infer that some predecessor of Bha- 
maha whom Bhamaha criticises but whom Dandin follows, gave the 
instance etc. and held it as an Alankara called Hetu. 



Varta is rejected by Bhamaha. Such a view does not seem to be 
tenable. The Jayamahgala which speaks of a Vartalahkara has 
a curious reading for the second line of Bhamaha’s verse. This 
reading itself does not agree with the context in Bhamaha. If 
Bhamaha is refuting an Alahkara of some predecessor called 
Varta in that verse, the verse must have been written otherwise. 
As it is, it must be taken as closely connected with the previous 
verse refuting Hetu, Suksma and Les'a and must be taken to 
give an instance of an ‘ Abhidhana samudaya an expression 
as a whole, which has no Vakrokti (Vakroktyanabhidhana) ; 
and hence a case of no Kavya but only 

a bald communication of facts 51^85^). It is clear 

that in Bhamaha, Varta is not used as the name of an Alahkara. 
Nor has Varta the Alahkara anything to do with the w^ord 
Varta in Dandin, I. 85, but of which more in the section on 

Soon, finishing a few Alahkaras, Bhamaha comes to Sva- 
bhavokti : 

(or | 

in iTtn: II II. 93-94. 

There is a discussion among scholars on the question : Did 
Bhamaha accept Svabhavokti as an Alahkara ? Some say that* 
the somewhat indifferent reference to it in the words 

shows that Bhamaha did not accept it as an 
Alahkara. As regards Bhamaha ’s attitude towards Svabha- 
vokti, one Purvapaksa is completely ruled out namely that it 
is not mentioned by him. Bhamaha mentions, defines and 



illustrates it. In this respect, it resembles As'is, III, 55-56. 
To begin with, that Bhamaha defines and illustrates Svabha- 
vokti is sonje proof of his acceptance of it as a figure. The 
figures which Bhamaha does not accept are not referred to 
by him in such terms. If he does not accept a figure, he says 
I Witness the case of Hetu, Suksma and Les'a. 
The words ^ ^ is no argument for taking that 

Bhamaha did not accept Svabhavokti. Many Alankaras are 
introduced in these terms. These w’ords cannot serve as an 
argument even for the view that Svabhavokti has a dubious 
existence in Bhamaha. Dr. De sometimes speaks of Svabha- 
vokti as having a dubious existence in Bhamaha though in 
Vol. II of his. Poetics and in his Introduction to his edition of 
the Vakrokti jivita, he views that Bhamaha does not accept 
this figure. Dr. A. Sankaran opines in his Theories of Rasa 
and Dhvani (p, 22) that Bhamaha does not accept this figure. 
Mr. D. T. Tatacharya Siromani examines these views and 
replies to them in his M.O.L. Essay on the Definition of 
Poetry, published in the J.O.R., Madras. Udbhata and 
Kuntaka considered Bhamaha as accepting Svabhavokti. 
Udbhata has enumerated and defined Svabhavokti in the same 
order and place as in Bhamaha. The ‘ancients', cirantanas, 
who figure in Kuntaka’s Purvapaksa as accepting Svabhavokti, 
include Bhamaha. Bhoja who digests completely Bhamaha, 
Dandin and Rudrata gives Bhamaha ’s illustration of Svabha- 
vokti in his treatment of that figure which shows that, accord- 
ing to Bhoja, Bhamaha accepted that figure. If Kuntaka had 
the slightest hint that Bhamaha did not accept this figure, he 
would have reinforced his critique against Svabhavokti with a 
reference to Bhamaha ’s text to that effect. 

On p. 61 of Vol. II of his Poetics, Dr. De says : ‘ When 
words are used in the ordinary manner of common parlance. 



as people without a poetic turn of mind use them, there is no 
special charm or strikingness. Such Svabhavokti or “ natural ” 
mode of speech to which Dandin is so partial but which he 
also distinguishes from Vakrokti, is not acceptable to Bhamaha 
and Kuntaka, who refuse to acknowledge it as a poetic figure 
at all.’ One cannot point out any passage in Bhamaha 
which refutes Svabhavokti and it is wrong to club Bhamaha 
with Kuntaka who elaborately argues against Svabhavokti, 
as can be seen in a further section. And there is nothing like 
partiality for Svabhavokti in Dandin. If one views Bhamaha 
as being inimical to this figure, he imagines Dandin to be 
overfond of it. Nor is the attribute ^ ^ applied 

by Dandin to Svabhavokti a sign of his partiality for it. The 
attribute only means that in the field of poetic expression 
where Vakrokti rises gradually, Svabhavokti stands first or at 
the bottom involving least Vakrata ; it is the starting point ; 
the ground for Vakrokti to come into further play. 

Mr. Tatacharya has, it seems, committed an excess while 
trying to prove that Bhamaha accepted Svabhavokti. He says 
that when Bhamaha said — 

5% I I. 39. 

he meant like Dandin to divide poetic expression into two 
realms, Vakrokti and Svabhavokti; and Mr. Tatacharya puts 
a forced interpretation on * Vakrasvabhavoktya ’ which does 
not mean and but means only 

the word Svabhava here meaning ‘ of the nature of 
Consequently Mr. Tatacharya views that Bhamaha also, like 
Dandin, classified Vanmaya into two classes, Svabhavokti and 
Vakrokti. Mr. Tatacharya says : ‘ As is shown above, in 
BhSmaha’s view, all the Alankaras other than the one 



Svabhavokti, are governed by the Vakrokti principle.’ This is 
Dandin’s view/ not Bhamaha’s. To Bhamaha, the absence of 
Vakrata or Vakrokti eliminates an expression from the fold of 
Alahkara ; it will not be Svabhavokti but Varta, — not like 
etc. but like etc. For Bhamaha 

Vakrokti is Alahkara, and Svabhavokti also which has got 
its own degree of Vakrata marking it off from mere Varta 
is comprised in Vakrokti. Dandin examined the realm of 
poetic speech with greater scrutiny and said that since in 
Svabhavokti, the Vakrata is least, let it stand apart. And 
even to this Dandin, the expression of Rasa, Rasa-ukti, 
is still part of Vakrokti, and Bhoja therefore analyzed 
poetic expression into three parts, Svabhavokti, Rasokti and 

Just as Bana said that a Jati should be Agramya, Dandin 
says that it should bring before our eyes the picture vividly. 

^ I II. 8. ‘ ’ 

says Tarunavacaspati, while the Hrdayarhgama which says 
* ^ emphasizes that no artificial aid of a 

figurative flourish shall be used here. As previously indicated, 
Dandin gives four classes of Svabhavokti — Jati, Kriya, Guna 
and Dravya, II. 13. Bhoja (S.K.A., III, 6-8) multiplies the 
classes, — Svarupa, Samsthana, Avasthana, Vesa, Vyapara 
etc. ; child, maiden, animal ; time, place etc., — elaborations 
borrowed by him from Rudrata.* 

* K.A., II, 362. Madras Edn. 

*The anonymous gloss on the Kavyadars'a in the N.S. Edn. 
has a strange comment on ^ ^ in Dandin’s definition of the 

Svabhavokti. It says that, according to some who base themselves 
on this condition of * Nanavastha’, only a description of an object 
in several states or of several objects in several states^ constitutes 
a Svabhavokti, and not the description of an object in a single 
state ! This too literal an interpretation of Dandin is not justifiable. 



What about Varta in Dandin ? It is not found in the con- 
text of Svabhavokti nor anywhere in Ch. II. We find it in 
Ch. I in Dandin’s treatment of the Guna called Kanti, 
I, 85-87. 

^ II 

Kanti has a certain amount of kinship with Svabhavoktu 
since in both, there is no perceptible stepping out of the 
inormal mode of saying, Laukikartha-anatikrama. Such Kanti, 
Dandin says, is found in Vartabhidhana and Varnana and 
illustrates Vartabhidhana with the following verse : 

II I. 86. 

The GaudI style which would not be content with this expres- 
sion with Kanti, would say : etc. This 

Varta is a sweet complement or word of welcome or enquiry 
on the occasion of the arrival of a worthy guest. It is thus 
clear that Varta here is not any Alahkara, nor the Alahkara 
which the Jayamangala says Bafti is illustrating. Such is the 
view of the commentators and later writers also, none of 
whom sees reference to any Alahkara in the Varta here. 

rTTO says the Hrdayahgama. Hema-* 

candra, while reviewing the old Gunas in his gloss on his own 
K. Anus'asana, refers to Dandin’s Kanti in Varta and Varnana 

and interprets Varta as a ‘ complement ’ f 

I p. 200, K. A. S'ihgabhupala also says that 
Varta is a welfare-enquiry : qW l 



p. 67, T.S.S. Edn. Ratnes^vara’s gloss on S.K.A., I, p. 114 : 

Rudrata classifies the Arthalahkaras into four classes, 
Vastava, Aupamya, Atis'aya and S'lesa. All the three here 
except the first involve an embellishment by a simile or an ex- 
aggeration or a play on the words- In Vastava, we have the 
bare idea as it is, untwisted, Aviparlta ; but even as Bana 
said ‘ Agramya Rudrata says, ‘ Pustartha Apusta, the 
bald statement, comes under the Dosas. 


K. A. VIII, 10, 

Namisadhu ; 1 — 

m 5 iiTiT^iq: ii ’ 

5T i 

To this class of Vastava figures, Rudrata assigns Sahokti, 
Samuccaya, Jdti, Yathasaitikhya, Bhava, Paryaya, Visama, 
Anumana, Dipaka, Parikara, Parivrtti, Parisamkhya, Hetu, 
Karanamala, Vyatireka, Anyonya, Uttara, Sara, Suksma, Les'a, 
Avasara, Milita and EkavalL Of these Jati is Vastava par 
excellence. In VII. 30-31, Rudrata speaks of the several 
varieties of Jati, Form, Pose etc., and subjects for Jati like 
children, maidens etc., as already mentioned. There is one 

^ C/. Jivananda VidyavSagar’s gloss on the Kavyadars'a .* 
3TiT]Tr^?TT^Tq: i ‘ ^ I 

Here is mentioned another meaning also of Varta as * ^ 

which is not satisfactory. But none has taken Dandin’s Varta 
here as the name of Alankara. 



point in Namisadhu’s gloss on Jati in Rudrata which is worth 
noting. He says that whereas Vastava means only a 
statement of a thing as it is, Jati implies a vivid picture that 
can create an experience, an Anubhava, of the thing in the 
mind. \ q?! q?^'4 

I This is the significance of the qualification 
to Jati which writers add, Agramya, Caru, Pusta and so on. 

Udbhata recognizes Svabhavokti and gives it with a 
definition and illustration in the third Varga : 

^Tqj IfTqjTqt i 

ii iii. 8 . 9. 

What must be noted in Udbhata’s treatment of Svabhavokti 
is his unwarranted restriction of the scope of Svabhavokti 
to the Hevaka, eagerness or fondness, in their respective 
activities of young ones of animals and the like. Neither 
to one class of beings like young ones of animals nor to one 
aspect only viz», action, Kriya, can Svabhavokti be restricted. 
The commentary on Udbhata’s K.A.S.S. published in the 
*GOS. as Tilaka’s, definitely says that a description of the 
nature of things as such is not Svabhavokti but only the 
^ Hevaka ’ of Balamrga and the like in their activities : sqfPTR- 

1 But, fortunately, Pratiharenduraja liberally interprets 
Hevaka and enlarges the scope of this figure to its nor- 
mal extent. 

Bhoja’s treatment of Svabhavokti has something note- 
worthy, both in his Sarasvatikanthabharana (S.K.A.) and 



the S'rngara Prakas'a (SV. Pra.). The S.K.A. says in 
III. 4-5 : 

f^tlT sjf^^ I 

5iTqnT^(siffl)'?i #!5 ?n II 

Characteristics which are born in things in their several states 
and which, by nature, pertain to them form the subject of 
Jati. By the second qualification that the characteristics shall 
pertain to the things by nature, — ^ — 
Bhoja, as explained by Ratnes'vara, excludes external associa- 
tions like reminiscences, reflections etc., on seeing the objects.® 
The first qualification is fully explained in the second verse 
from which we learn that it is intended to keep distinct the 
Alankara Svabhavokti and the Guna Arthavyakti. This ques- 
tion takes us to Vamana’s Arthaguna Arthavyakti in the defini- 
tion of which Vamana uses the word Vastusvabhava and whose 
two illustrations are simply two cases of Svabhavokti. (K.A. 
Su. III. ii. 13). I VIRRT 

, 31^ ai»45qrTfi: I It is clear from this that either 
Arthavyakti or Svabhavokti does not obviate the need for the 
other; nor is there any need to point out how the two do not 
overlap. It is rather illogical to distinguish two things of 
two different classes, one a Guna and another an Alankara. 
This Arthavyakti of Vamana is a quality pertaining to the 

' For this correct reading, see Bhatta Gopala*s gloss on the 
Kavyaprakas'a T.S.S. Edn. 

2135114: + + 3irf^’ 

•F2IT44 9IT?— I 1 Ratnes'vara. 



Alankara called Svabhavokti, and to other kinds of expressions 
also.* Still Bhoja tries to show us the difference between 
Arthavyakti and Svabhavokti. He says that in Arthavyakti 
only those aspects of an object are presented which form its 
permanent distinguishing attributes, Sarvakalikam rupam, 
whereas in Svabhavokti those aspects which are manifest as a 
result of a particular mood or situation, Avasthasu jayamanam 
rupam, are presented. This latter is, as contrasted with the 
Sarvakalika svarupa, an Agantuka svarupa. Says Ratnes'vara : 

gr^qvi# ’ | This is an unnecessary distinction 

which brings in its train an unwarranted restriction of the 
scope of Svabhavokti to ‘ special states Bhoja here re- 
sembles those who dragged down the Prabandha Guna 
Bhavika to the state of Vakyalahkara and then began pro- 
pounding its difference from Svabhavokti.* 

The Agnipurana which draws upon Bhoja to a great 
extent,'^ borrows this classification of the nature of a thing 
into Sarvakalika and Agantuka or Jayamana. The Agnipurana 

‘ Mammata rightly realises Arthavyakti to be a quality pre- 
eminently necessary for all good poetry and gives its scope as 
embracing not only Svabhavokti but cases of Rasadhvani etc. also. 
See Ch. 8, p. 187. T.S.S. Edn. of the Kavyaprakas'a. When Hema- 
candra says that Vamana's Arthavyakti guna is needless, because 
it is nothing but the Alankara named Jati, he is not making a proper 
criticism. (3Tf^ ^ 5fT^iifjTFTfl?5fR §[% p. 199). Cf. Bhatta Gopala— 
g i p. i87, T.s.s. Edn. 

* See also Ch. on Bhoja and Svabhavokti in my Ph. D. Thesis 
on Bhoja’s S'r. Pra. Vol. I. pt. 1. pp. 139-144. 

^ For other ideas in the Agnipurana taken from Bhoja, see the 
present writer’s Riti and Guna in the Agnipurana in the IHQ.^ 
Vol. X, pp. 767-779. 



calls Svabhavokti by the name Svarupalahkara. (Ch. 344). 

| it defines the figure thus : 

rl«n I 

From its stopping with this and saying no more, we have to 
conclude that the Agnipurana would have Svabhavokti in both 
cases unlike Bhoja who would have Arthavyakti in the 
former case. 

Besides reproducing what he said in the S.K.A. on Sva- 
bhavokti or Jati, Bhoja gives an additional idea in his S'r. 
Prakas'a. As indicated once previously, he carries out to its 
scientific length the classification in Dandin of poetic expres- 
sion into Svabhavokti and Vakrokti. He separates the Rasas 
from Vakrokti’s fold and constitutes them into the third class 
called Rasokti. While doing so, he defines each of these three as 
expression dominated respectively by Guna, Upama and other 
Alankaras, and Rasa. 

1 1 ” s'r. Pa., 

Madras MS., Vol. II, ch. xi, p. 372. This is just hinted in 
the fifth ch. of the S.K.A. where Bhoja says : 

3^3 JITfloft II V. 8. 

The idea in defining in the S'r. Pra. Svabhavokti as expression 
dominated by the Gunas is that when there is none of the 
figures beginning with Upama, the only thing the expression 
possesses is the Gunas. This has been explained at length in 
my thesis on Bhoja’s S'r. Pra., Vol. I. pt, 1. pp. 143-4. 



BahurupamisTa accepts this three-fold classification of 
poetic expression in his commentar}'^ on the Das'arupaka 
which I have reviewed in detail in J.O.R., Vol. VIII, p. 325, 

The anonymous Sahityamim&msa, now edited in a very 
unsatisfactory manner in the T.S.S. (No. 114), is a work 
based on Bhoja’s S'r. Pra. which it reproduces extensively^ 
It gives Bhoja’s classification of Kavya-ukti into these three 
classes of Svabhava, Vakra and Rasa Uktis ; only it calls 
Svabhavokti, Rjukti (p. 99). It reproduces also the S.K.A, 
verse on the difference between Svabhavokti and Arthavyakti. 

In connection with Mammata’s treatment of Svabhavokti, 
the only interesting point to which attention can be drawn is 
Vidyacakravarttin’s rather incorrect understanding and conse- 
quent needless criticism of the Sandhivigrahika f.e., Vis'va- 
natha, a point which I have set forth at some length in 
a note in the Annals of the B.O.R.I., Vol. XIV, pp. 251 
and 254. 

In the history of the concept of Svabhavokti, the names 
of Kuntaka and Mahimabhatta stand out prominently. The 
former denies that it is an Alankara and the latter comes out 
with an eloquent defence of it as an Alankara. Kuntaka 
must be put down as a follower of Bhamaha with this diffe- 
rence that while for Bhamaha, Svabhavokti is comprehended 
as a variety of Alankara in Vakrokti, for Kuntaka, Svabha- 
vokti is not to be called an Alankara or a species of Vakrokti 
because it is the very nature of the idea which forms tfie 
material for the further employment of Vakrokti. That is, 
Kuntaka considers Svabhavokti as the Alankarya, i.e., the 
Kavya S'arira and if it is itself called Alankara, it will be an 
impossible case of Alankara decorating itself, as impossible as 
one mounting one’s own shoulders. Kuntaka is not behind 
anybody in his appreciation of verses of unembellished grace,. 



but in all those cases he would say that the subject or idea 
itself, the Vastu, has an innate Saundarya or Vakrata. Cases 
which are Svabhavokti for others would be cases of Vastu 
vakrata for Kuntaka. But Vastu which has Vakrata is diffe- 
rent from ordinary Vastu devoid of Vakrata, as in ordinary 
talk. Does not this distinguishing Vakrata which separates 
Loka vastu and Kavya vastu amount to Alahkara ? It may not 
be so much Vicchitti as is found in other species of Vakrokti 
but yet it is some Vicchitti and as such is Alahkara ; and it 
does not pertain ordinarily to all instances ; only poets are 
able to say things with that Vastu vakrata. And Vakrata is 
Vakrokti. To this Kuntaka would reply that as far as poetry 
is concerned, only such Vastu as has beauty is relevant ; the 
bald Vastu is out of the scope of the discussion. But, if on 
the score of this Vakrata, one would call a Svabhavakhyana 
as Svabhavokti Alahkara, Kuntaka would seem to yield a 
little that there is after all only a dispute in names. 

V. J., p. 139. 

In the second Vimars'a of his Vyaktiviveka, Mahima- 
bhatta speaks of five flaws the last of which is Vacya-avacana 
under which he treats of a closely related flaw, Avacya-vacana, 

^ As Valmiki also would say (while describing Sita) : 

Sundara. 17. 25. 

* Some other minor objections are also pointed out by Kuntaka. 
He asks that if Vastusvabhava itself is Alahkara, what then shall 
an Alahkara adorn and adds that if Vastusvabhava itself is one 
Alahkara, every case of another Alahkara will be a case of Sankara 
or Samsrsti (V.J., pp. 24-25). 


the putting in of what ought not to be put in. Attributes 
which do not add to the significance or words which do not 
heighten or aspects of things which are commonplace and are 
devoid of any charm — these if expressed form the flaw of 
Avacya-vacana. Sometimes when a poet nods, when lesser 
writers have got to fill in parts of the metrical line, such things 
get in. These Mahima calls ‘ Apratibhodbhava born of a 
mind lacking Imagination and Inspiration. These are the 
^ dust ’ that must be swept out of poetry, ‘ Avakara’ as Mahima 
calls them. 

II. p. 107. V. V. T.S.S. Edn. 

This topic directly leads Mahimabhatta to an examination of 
Svabhavokti Alankara. When a poet describes a thing as it 
is he must not present us with the well-known and common- 
place aspects of things, a description of which does not make 
the picture live before our eyes, Thus a case of 

Svabhavokti is most liable to the flaw of Avacyarvacana 
described in the terms and 

Hence did Bana qualify Jati by Agramyatva and Rudrata by 
Pustarthatva.* One must be a poet of imagination and in- 
spiration to write a real Svabhavokti with power to live before 

^ A bald statement comes under an Arthadosa called Apusta, 
Niralankara and so on. 

V.V,, p. 109. See also Bhoja’s S.K.A., pp. 30, 37 and 38 and 
Ratnes'vara’s com. there. 



our mind’s eye. In I. 12, p. 23, Kuntaka said that nothing 
can be talked of without reference to its Svabhava or nature, 
and that there can be no case of expression devoid of Svabhava- 
delineation ; for no object is conceivable without its nature 
and attributes. 

^ II V. J. I, 12. 

A statement of this unavoidable Svabhava cannot be an Alah- 
kara. With reference to this Mahima says : 

(fZT)' 11 

Hcf Rra^ngqi^j; II 

^oi (or f^rSlT) II 

^TT f| I 

^ This correct reading is found in the ‘ different readings ’ 
given at the end of the T.S.S. Edn, of the V.V., and is found also 
in Hemacandra who reproduces these verses on p. 275 of his K.A. 

^ See Hemacandra for the correct word ' Dhyamala *, meaning 
^ impure, tainted ’. 




^IclT I 

^^: qf^^lTfq^T: II p. 108 . 

21: ^'\s??fT^lR(ie^S5155fR)*jih^: t 
fi^Eil^Jl^l#T?2|8iT 5^ f| 5i^321TcI II 
^gHT^TTg^T?^ m: I 

*3i^w It 

p. 109, V.V. T.S.S. p:dn. 

The commentary on the V. V. does not extend to this section 
but the following extracts will serve to show how Hemacandra 
and Manikyacandra understood the above verses of Mahima- 
bhatta : 


^ ^d^21: I ^■— 

3qT ii ’ (Kuntaka) 

2?flf^qfdqif33, tifecmq I f| flmpq- 

^f%^TS^SQ51T4: I q5fqRffl^lT^:ii?f#qf^qq^ ^SFl^- 

I (quotation of the above verses from 

Mahima) Hemacandra, p, 275, com. — 

* See Hemacandra. 

^ Hemacandra also reads incorrectly ‘ Anyalankara. ’ 

’ This half is missing in the T.S.S. Edn. and is supplied here 
from Hemacandra. 



g 31^ ^.^ st^lTT: I p. 403, 

Mysore Edn. Manikyacandra’s gloss on the K. Prakas'a. 

It is accepted by logicians that in one’s apprehension of 
an object there are really two kinds of aw^areness, one of the 
object itself as such and another of the object as possessing a 
name and as belonging to a class. Perception is thus indeter- 
minate and determinate, Nirvikalpaka and Savikalpaka. 
Somewhat similar to this, there are the two apprehensions of 
an object by a poet endow'ed with penetrating imagination and 
by an ordinary man. The latter sees w^hat is but the common 
nature, Samanyarupa, of an object ; the expression which he 
uses in communicating about that object communicates only 
the ordinary nature of the object. But the imaginative eye of 
the poet which is like a Yogin’s vision or a divine third eye, 
sees a special aspect of the thing, not w ith reference to its 
common nature, but details whose presentation reveal a 
wondrous picture of it. If w^e understand Mahimabhatta’s 
Samanya and Vis'esa Svabhavas in such a general manner, 
his verses do not offer any problem for interpretation. 
The commonplace Svabhava of thing wall be the scientific 
facts about an object, its attributes as pertaining to a class ; a 
bald statement of these as in etc. w^ould not 

constitute Svabhavokti Alankara ; this ordinary nature of the 
thing is the fact available in the world and forms the material 
for the play of the poet’s imagination and fancy ; it is the 
Alankarya. The striking and special aspect of the thing, its 
Vis'ista Svabhava, which the poet’s eye alone sees and his 
imagination alone embodies in words of poetry, is the object of 


Svabhavokti Alankarana. In as much as this Visdsta Svabhava 
is not * Siddha’, but is ‘ Sadhyamana’ through the play of the 
poet^s Pratibha, it is Alahkara. The drab matter of fact 
Svabhava is out of the scope of any Alahkara. Hence did the 
previous writers also insist on Jati being Agramya, Pusta,^ 
Cam and so on. Ruyyaka calls this Suksma svabhava and 
Vidyadhara, Uccais svabhava. Kimtaka would, however, 
reply that he is still unanswered ; for, to him, it is the Vis'ista 
svabhava that forms the Kavya s'arira and the other Svabhava 
is out of account in a discussion in poetics. 

I V.J. Ill, p. 135. 

Artha in Kavya is, by necessity, Sundara : ^'4*. 

I I. 6, V.J. The Vis'ista Svabhava varnana is a 
case of the Vastu itself having the requisite Vakrata. But to 
others, as has already been said, this Vakrata which is surely 
a result of the poet’s power and is not something existing 
there already, is reason enough to call the case an Alahkara. 

Ruyyaka has something special to contribute to the study 
of Svabhavokti. He has touched an aspect of the question 
not dealt with by others. It is his distinction of Svabhavokti 
from Bhavika. It is, however, a question which cannot be 
gone into fully except after a survey of the history of the. 
concept of Bhavika from the beginning and for this reason is 
reserved for the next chapter. 

* Cf. Apusta dosa and Niralahkara dosa (in cases where the 
Samanya Svabhava is given) in the Dosa prakaratja of the books. 


Bhamaha says at the end of his Alahkaras : 

qqjqf ii 

^qTqT^T|qTq^ ^ffl(or fq)qtqqT I 

tTHi ^ qq^^ n iii. 52-53. 

Bhamaha here speaks of a concept which he calls a Guna, 
not of Vakya, but of the Prabandha as a whole. As it has 
been treated of at the end of Alahkaras, we have to suppose that 
Bhamaha considered this also as an Alahkara, with this differ- 
ence, that while the rest were restricted to a Vakya, this was 
pervasive of a whole part of a poetic composition or of the 
whole composition itself. As a matter of fact, Bhamaha calls 
this Bhavikatva an Alahkara in the beginning of the third 
chapter : 

^ 1 iii. 4. 

That Bhamaha considered this Bhavikatva described as a Pra- 
bandha guna as an Alahkara is confirmed by the words of the 
Jayamahgala on Bhatti also : 

What is this Bhavikatva ? Bhamaha defines this as the 
quality which pertains to that part of a composition where the 


ideas of the past and the future presented by the poet are so 
vivid as to look like belonging to the present. The term 
‘ Prabandha ’ may be rendered here as ‘ that part of the poem ’ 
on the force of the word ' yatra' and on the basis of the 
Jayamahgala which points out only one canto in illustration 
of this Bhavikatva. But it seems that Bhavikatva is really a 
quality of prime necessity which all great and good poetry 
should, from beginning to end, possess. The poet is like the Rsi 
who brings through the power of his vision the past and future 
into the present. 

Anargharaghava, II. 34. 

As one reads the poem, it should begin to live before his eyes : 
that is, it should appear before the mind’s eye of the reader 
that the story is happening in his very presence. It is this 
* pratyaksayamanatva ’ which the Arsa-Sahrdayas who listened 
to the inaugural recitation of Valmiki’s epic said that the Adi- 
kavya possessed : 

I i. 4. 17. 

Such a ‘ reality ’ called forth by ‘ imagination ’ seems to 
be called by some word derived from bhava : bhava itself or 
bhavana or bhavika or bhavita, or udbhavana. In this con- 
nection it should be pointed out here that the twelfth ahga of 
the Lasya is called bhava and bhavita and that it is defined as 
an ‘ imaginary vision in which, having seen her lover in a 
dream, the beloved supposes him to be present with her and 
begins to give expression to consequent emotions : 

Ch. XX, S'l. 139. Kas-I Edn. 



1ST fss S^IJT^cTTfq^T I 


ii &i 152. ibid 

Abhinava, who does not accept more than ten Lasyahgas, refers 
to others who proposed two more Lasyahgas and here, be gives 
4;he Bhavita as Bhavika. 

wn qsf^ ^ etc. 

p. 510, vol. II, Abhi. Bha. Madras MS. 

In the Bha. Pra., S'aradatanaya also gives it as Bhavika. 

To return to Bhamaha, — the means to achieve this Bhavi- 
katva are mentioned by Bhamaha in the second verse. They 
are three : citrodMtddhhiitdrthatvamy kathdydh svabhi (or vl) 
nltatd, and s'abddndkulatd. Of these three, it seems the 
second should be taken first. There does not seem to be any 
reference to drama or Abhinaya here, in the expression ‘ Katha- 
yah Svabhinltatd' There is a reading ' svavinltatd ’ which 
the Jayamahgala supports. It simply means that the story 
should progress very smoothly and with gripping interest, 
there being no hitch, no vagueness and nothing mystifying. 
Then comes the first means which applies to the ideas with 
which the story is worked out ; the Arthas should be striking 
and exalted enough to capture the imagination. Then comes 
the third means, which refers to the verbal expression which 
should not be * involved ’ or such as to prevent a quick grasp of 
the ideas or the story. ^ 

* In the Samanyabhinaya chapter (24th, Kas'i Edn.), Bharata 
refers to two kinds of drama and its presentation (Prayoga), — 
Abhyantara and Bahya. In the definition of the Abhyantara Natya 
prayoga, we find ideas similar to those by which Bhamaha defines 

g w S'l. 71. 



Bhatti, as interpreted by the Jayamahgala, considered 
that primarily poetry must have Prasada ; hence, when after 
illustrating grammar he comes to the illustration of poetics, 
he calls the section Prasanna kanda. Next to Prasada are the 
Alahkaras ; then comes Madhurya guna illustrated by a descrip^ 
tion of dawn ; next appears a canto, the 12th, which is said to 
illustrate Bhavikatva. The Jayamahgala here says that Bhavi- 
katva is an Alahkara mentioned as pertaining to a whole com- 
position and not to a sentence ; and it results from the ideas 
being * wonderful ’ and so on. It then quotes Bhamaha’s two 
verses on Bhavikatva and concludes that in that canto of 
Mantranirnaya, deliberation in Ravana's court, Bhavikatva 
must be held to have been illustrated. 

1) I 

(the two verses of Bhamaha quoted above) t 

To begin with, this canto has 5 verses addressed to 
Vibhisana by his mother, s'ls. 2-6, These five verses are said 
to illustrate Udattarthatva. In the discussion and counsel that 
follow, one must look for the other features, 

and Says the Jayamahgala : (p. 307, 

N. S. edn.) 



The Jayamaiigala says here only one definite thing ; that 
the svavinUatd of kathd means ‘ subodhata easy understanda- 
bility of the story. J^eyond this, vve are not able to know 
what exactly in this canto answer to the conditions Udat- 
tdrtha, Citrdrthay Adbhutartha, KatJidyah svavinUatd, and 
S* abddndkulatd ; nor are we able to see how in this particular 
canto, things of past and future are made to appear as present 
ones. It is needless to add that Mallinatha is of less 
help here. 

Dandin also, like Bhamaha, calls Bhavikatva or Bhavika, 
a Prabandha guna. He has three verses on it, at the end of 
his Alankdras and in these verses, there are ideas not found in 

(1) or 


(2) 1 

(i) (4) 11 

(5) I 


If we leave the initial agreement in calling it a Prabandha 
guna, we find that there is nothing of what Bhamaha said in 
Dandin's description of the Bhavika. Perhaps, the fifth id6a, 
the clear appearance of even a deep lying idea by the force or 
the sequence of the expression, contains a faint echo of Bha- 
maha’s idea of past and future being as alive as present, 

I All the other ideas in Dandin 
numbering four turn on the derivation of Bhavikatva from 
Bhava, so clearly stated in idea number one. The several 


parts or sections of a composition being mutually helpful, 
avoidance of the needless details, descriptions only at places 
proper for them — all these are ideas oi Aucitya, common in later 
days but striking in an early writer. All these ideas of Aucitya, 
flow out of the idea of the poet (kavibhdva) and Dr. De finds 
here a (as Ananda would say) of the aesthetical problem 

of poetry being the expression of the poet’s mind, with which, 
he adds, western poetics is so much concerned and Sanskrit 
poetics so little.' But what Dandin actually meant by Kavi- 
abhipraya can only be conjectured ; and the commentators are 
of little help. It is however clear that Bhavikatva was in 
vogue among critics in the pre-Bhamaha days and that when 
we come to Bhamaha and Dandin, already guess-work had 
started. Dandin’s Bhavika as Kavi-abhipraya, the mutual 
helpfulness of parts etc., died with him. No later writer 
revived it. For the later writers, the Bhavika was what Bha- 
maha gave them through Udbhata. 

Ubdhata made it a definite Alankara casting of the ad' 
junct, Prabandha guna. He defines it towards the close of 
the sixth varga, in a single verse : 

I! K.A.S.S. 


Bhavikatva has now definitely become bhavi^u:. Udbhata 
felt that in the expression, Citroddttdcibhutdrtha , there is much 
redundance ; he satisfied himself with a single qualification of 
artha, Atyadhhtita. He left off Bhamaha’s second condition, 
* kathayah svabhinitata.’ Perhaps honesty is responsible 
for Udbhata’s omission of this un-understandable bit. 

^ See bis Intro, to V.J., p, xx, Skr, Poetics, II, p, 63, f.n., and 
Pathak Com. VoL, p. 355. 



* S'abdanakiilatd ’ recurs here as ‘ vdcdm andkulyaJ* The main 
definition of Bhavika given by Bhamaha, the present-like 
appearance of the pas^ and future, is retained by Udbhata. 

Pratiharenduraja occupies an important place in the 
history of Bhavika. At his hands the concept reached its 
widest interpretation. While commenting on Udbhata, he 
quotes and explains Bhamaha’s two verses on Bhavikatva ; and 
Dandin’s explanation — bhavah kaveh abhiprayah — is also 
found absorbed in Pratiharenduraja ’s imaginative exposition 
of Bhavika. ' Vdcdm andkulya" in Udbhata and ‘ 
kiilatd ’ in Bhamaha are interpreted by him as the quick deli- 
very of the meaning, a quality of the words allied to Prasada 
and Arthavyakti ; Prasada and Arthavyakti are to be included 
here in this Bhavika and not vice versa, as Ruyyaka adds. 

I Pratiharendu, p. 79.^ 

Ruyyaka, A.S.] 

Pratiharenduraja makes Bhavika the very essence of Rasa- 
realisation. It has been pointed out by Ananda (Dhva. A., 
II, xi, p. 82) that Prasada is pre-eminently necessary for 
rasa-realisation. The second condition ^'-^11^1*. is 

directly related by Pratiharenduraja to Rasa-realisation by inter- 
preting * svabhinitata ’ as referring to the clear presentation 
(abhinaya) of the Rasas. 

I p. 80. 

^ Edn. Banhatti, 1925. 



The other condition of Artha being Citra, Udatta and 
and Adbhuta is emphasised by Pratiharendu as a feature of 
Artha corresponding to the feature of S'abda called Sahda 


1 p. 80. 

Ideas should be exalted, expression transparent and emo- 
tion graphically presented. When these are there, the Sahr- 
daya’s mind realises completely the poet ’s mind mirrored 
in his poetry. Thus Pratiharenduraja touches Dandin’s 
and Bhatta Nayaka’s It appears 

Pratiharenduraja’s idea of Bhavika has affinities with the 
concept of Imagination, lying at the basis of not only poetic 
creation but also of the critic’s aesthetic re-creation of poetry 
in his enjoyment of it. Pratiharenduraja actually says that 
Bhavika refers both to the poet and to the Sahrdaya between 
whom a circuit of experience is completed. 

^Tf»i£lWT^5JT I 



j ^Tl^sffqfjqg^ ^1% 

I ^T^Tl: — 

5i5?]»53:q^T 1 
Rq;T5lH II 

cf^^F^l^: 3fs =^qTI H%rl, II 
II pp. 79-80. 

Udbhata’s illustration is a verse in which reference is 
made to a damsel having had (bhuta) collyriiim in her eye, and 
to her future (bhdvi) wearing of ornaments ! Pratiharendu no 
doubt offers some comments on the illustration but what a far 
cry from the great concept of aesthetics that Bhavika is to him 
and to what is said to be illustrated in this verse ! 

Mammata’ takes his idea of Bhavika from Udbhata, but 
in his definition, he omits two ideas : first, the qualification of 
things by the attribute and second, the means, 

Marnmata’s illustration is much the same as Ud> 
bhata ’s: the lover says that he can see that there was collyrium 
in the lady’s eyes and he can imagine also how she will look 
when she is adorned with ornaments ! It is however not the 
mention in so many ideas and words of the past and future 
that is meant by Bhamaha when he says that Bhavika is the 
quality which makes the past and future event so vivid as to 
appear like happening before our very eyes. But through 
Udbhata, and Mammata also, a great concept of aesthetics fell 
to the place of a narrow rhetorical figure of a Vakya. 

^ ‘ Bhava * alahkara in Rudrata has nothing to do with the 
Bhavika of this chapter, which is absent in Rudrata. 



When Bhavika was reduced to this state, trouble arose 
and writers had to show that it did not overlap two others, 
viz., Svabhavokti on one side and Rasokti on the other. 
Mammata’s commentator, V^idyacakravarttin, explains why 
Mammata omitted from his definition of the Bhavika the 
statement of the means, S^ahddndkulya : When things of the 
past and future are visualised, there are two possibilities : The 
things by themselves may possess a power and beauty where- 
by their mere mention may make them look like being actually 
present before us ; or this quality of their becoming vivid 
enough to appear like things of the present may be wrought 
in them through the extraordinary gifts of expression in the 
poet, * s'abddndkidya' etc. To Bhamaha and Udbhata, only 
the latter cases were Bhavika ; for to become an Alahkara, a 
poet’s powers must have added something.^ Mammata how- 
ever thinks that both cases are Bhavika ; though it is true 
that for an Alahkara there has to be something wrought 
by the poet, we have ^ Svabhavokti ’ where the beauty is 
more or less ‘ siddha ’ ; even so, a presentation of such 
past and future things as possess an innate beauty and power 
is also a case of ‘ Bhavikalahkara ’ ; otherwise, we will have to 
commit the flaw of logical gaurava by creating a new name 
for this variety. Ruyyaka, in his Alahkara Sarvasva, first 
follows the older writers, but in the end quotes and recon- 
ciles Mammata to the older position, by accepting two 
varieties of Bhavika. Vidyacakravarttin here takes Viswanatha 
to task for not understanding Ruyyaka properly and this has 
been set forth by me at some length in a note in the Annals 

^ This statement of Bhamaha’s and Udbhata’s view of Bhavika 
by Vidj^acakravarttin does not seem to be wholly correct ; for, by 
the adjuncts and both Bhamaha 

and Udbhata mean that the things, by themselves also, must have 
something striking and gripping. 



of the BORI., vol. XIV, pp. 251-2, 254. It is needless to 
quote Vidyacakravarttin’s text here. (T.S.S. edn. of the 
K. Fra., pt. II, 346-7).^ 

It was seen in Pratiharenduraja’s exposition of the 
Bhavika how this concept became, at his hands, the very soul 
of Rasa-realisation and how, on reading it, our minds went to 
Bhatta Nayaka’s Bhavana, and the concept of Imagination. 
See Ruyyaka : 

— I ?fT ^ 

^ 1 m ^ ilTcj^T ^^JT^T^W^R3Tf)T, 

Pp. 221-223. T.S.S. Edn. A.S. 

which Bhatta Gopala reproduces thus in his gloss on the 
K. pra. — 

R5r I 

p. 347. T.S.S. Edn. II. 

This relates Bhava or Bhavana more definitely to the 
reader also, even as Pratiharenduraja did. 

To begin with, Ruyyaka also defined (in the Sutra) 
Bhavika as simply as Mammata, as the ‘ Pratyaksayamanatva ' 
of ‘ bhuta * and ‘ bhavi \ without mention of the means S'abdd- 
ndkulatd. But, in the Vrtti, he mentioned the ‘ 
of the ‘ Artha ' and the ‘ Andkulatd ' of the ‘ s^abda.’ Ruyyaka 



then points out that this Bhdvika cannot be mistaken for or 
included in Bhrdntimdn^ Atis'ayokti, Pratlyamdna Utpreksd, 
Kdvyalingay Rasavdn and SvabhdvoktL Among these, we 
shall concern ourselves only with Ruyyaka’s distinction of 
Bhavika from the last two, Rasavadalaiikara and Svabhavokti.’ 

The gloss on Udbhata published as Tilaka’s in the GOS. 
points out how the Bhavika would collide with Svabhavokti 
and Rasavadalahkara. 

p. 51, GOS. Edn. 

Svabhavokti and Rasavad Rasokti as Bhoja would 

say) are easily distinguished. They are both direct and gra- 
phic presentation, the former of objects and the latter of 
emotions. The former creates a Vastu-sarnvada in our mind ; 
it rouses a mental image. The latter creates a Cittavrtti-sarn- 
vada, an emotional image. 

A.S. Ruyyaka, N.S. Edn. with Jayaratha’s gloss, p. 181. 

I Jayaratha’s Vimars'inI on the A.S., p. 18-1. 

From Mammata as explained by Vidyacakravarttin, we 
understand that the difference between Bhavika and Sva- 
bhavokti is firstly, in point of time, Le., things in Bhavika 

* See the closing section of the previous chapter on Svabhavokti. 
Ruyyaka shows how Bhavika differs from Prasada guna also. 



are either past or future ; and secondly, in the restricted 
scope of Svabhavokti, which can describe only an object’s own 
natural form and action, (Svakriyarupa varnana). But Ruy- 
yaka says that Bhavika differs from both Rasavad and 
Svabhavokti in being an objective realisation in which the 
reader sees a thing as a yogin (bhinna sarvajha) sees the 
past and future ; in Svabhavokti and Rasokti^ the limiting 
contextual references get sunk ; subject-object duality merges 
and not only is there a generalised or universalised experience 
(Sadharanikrta) with reference to the characters presented in 
the poem or drama, but there is also, for the time, a 
loss or forgetting of the individuality of the reader or the 

q#: l 

=q 1 p. 224, A.S., T.S.S. Edn. 

Ruyyaka adds another difference between Bhavika and 
Svabhavokti : in the former, only a miraculous (adbhuta and 
lokottara : see his illustration incident figures, 

whereas in the latter any ordinary iaea. But this difference 
he casts off at once by saying that there may be^cases of vivid 
realisation of even ordinary things of this world, but then it 
would be a Bhavika with an element of Svabhavokti. Surely 
Ruyyaka does not mean that alone: in such a case makes 




Up the Bhavika and the Vastu being laukika makes up the 

Frra; l PP- 224-5 Ruyyaka, A.S., T.S.S. Edn. 

So, the main difference by which Ruyyaka would distin- 
guish Bhavika from Svabhavokti and Rasavad is that in the two 
latter cases, the PratTti is Sadharana. But this again is a thin 
prop, to be given up. What kind of realisation in poetry can 
there be without Sadharanikarana ? This universalisation has 
to come about, even in the case of Bhavika. Ruyyaka no doubt 
knows this but he adds, that when this Sadharanikarana floods 
the heart of the reader, the Bhavika becomes Rasavad. 

I p. 224, A.S., T.S.S. Edn. 

^ As Samudrabandha mistakes in his gloss, pp. 224-5, T.S.S. 


^ {a) Manikyacandra adopts Ruyyaka’s distinction of Bhavika 
from Svabhavokti and Rasavad. See p. 408. Mysore Edn. of the 
K. Pra. 

{h) Hemacandra says that Bhavika is either Svabhavokti or 
some feature pertaining purely to drama ; that if it is pointed out 
to be present in Muktakas, it is not found to be delectable ! p. 293, 
K. A. Vya. 

(c) Since Bhavika is said to present pictures separated by 
time, the Candridoka adds a kin-alahkara called Bhavikacchavi for 
presentation of things separated by space. 

c# n v. 1 14. 

id) For the connection Bhavika bears to the clear presenta- 
tion and realisation of rasa, see the following verse of S'ri Harsa in 
his Naisadhiya carita : 

II XIX, [1. 


The history of the concept of Riti has three stages: firsts 
when it was a living geographical mode of literary criticism ; 
second, when it lost the geographical association and came 
to be stereotyped and standardised with reference to subject ; 
and third, its re-interpretation by Kuntaka, the only Sanskrit 
Alamkarika, who with his fine literary instinct and originality 
as evidenced on many other lines also, related the Riti 
to the character of the poet and displaced the old Ritis by 
new ones. 

Like national characteristics, there are also provincial 
characteristics in manners. These are studied by Bharata in 
the concept of Pravrtti as part of the complete understanding 
of the world in its infinite variety, of which Natya is an 
Anukara.^ The concept of Pravrtti in manners is Riti in 
speech, in literature. Riti is literary manner.^ We first hear 
of it in Bana. In the introductory verses at the beginning of 
his Harsacarita, Bana remarks that certain parts of the 
country produce literature marked b}’ certain characteristics. 

^ See my paper on Lokadharmi, JOR., Madras, VIII, pp. 63-64. 

^ Rajas'ekhara works out this relation between Pravrtti and 
Riti in his mythological manner in his Kavya Purusa’s marriage 
with Sahityavidya. K. M. Gaek. Edn., pp. 8-9. 



There is no absurdity in such a geographical study ; it is 
natural. With the Orient and India in particular, the 
western writers associate opulence, extravagance, colour and 
exaggeration. These strike them as the eastern manner in life 
and literature. So also, Bana, speaking of the different parts 
of this country, remarks that the northerners write nothing 
but double entendre, the westerners, the bare idea ; the 
southerners roll in imaginative conceits while the Gaudas 
(easterners) make a display of wordy tumult.* But immediately 

* Bana says in this verse that it is the westerners who write 
the bare idea with the least flourish. The bare idea, Arthamatra, 
has its opposite in Pallava. Bald idea is the flaw called Apusta 
and similarly, too much Pallava is a flaw at the other extreme. 
Beautiful Pallava, says Ratnes'yara in his commentary on the 
Sarasvatikanthabharana (S. K. A.) II. p.l57, is the essence of 
poetry. He quotes here two anonymous verses, according to which 
it is not the westerners (as said by Bana) but the Northerners, 
Udicyas, as contrasted with the Daksinatyas or Vaidarbhas, that 
give the bare idea. 

im d ii 

arqssq g i 

The Vaidarbhas or Daksinatyas enrich their expressions. Excess 
of Pallava would however merit criticism at Bhamaha’s hands in 

the words and Mahima would condemn 

it as Avakara. Ratnes'vara refers only to the beautiful Pallava 
which keeps within limits as in the Vaidarbhas’ expression. 
Ratnes'vara considers the Vaidarbhas as experts fit to sit in judg- 
ment on this subject. I fl 

I p. 28. S. K. A. Vya. It is the vicious 
Pallava which has prolix words and little idea that S'riharsa de- 
scribes as the poison of speech. Fewest words for the greatest 
effect is, in S'riharsa’s view, the climax of style. 

Naisadha, IX, 8. 



Bana thinks that the best writer combines all these four 
qualities in the best manner, 

^ m-. \ 


The bare idea is stale but a novel turn given to the idea makes 
it striking : Navo'rthah, The natural description of things as 
they are, Jati, can be effective, if the discription is not bald and 
ordinary, Gramya. The S'lesa of the Udicyas is welcome but 
it should be ‘ Aklista ’, not forced. The Aksaradambara of the 
Gaudas has its own beauty but, all this has any beauty 
only if Rasa “is transparent in the piece, sphuto rasah. 
It is very difficult to combine these virtues ; but when 
one achieves it, he is a great writer indeed. In these 
two verses, Bana has spoken of four different styles, 
each definite and distinct, with its own emphasis on 
one particular feature, but has voted for casting away 
an over-emphasis on each of these four characteristics 
and for moderately and appropriately combining them 
into one good style which looks like the Nisyanda of 
the four. 

When we first have some record of the habits of 
literary criticism, w^e find two names, Vaidarbhl and Gaudi, 
characterising two styles of composition. The north and the 
west of the verse of Bana are lost. '^Two main distinguishable 
styles had stayed, the other two having lost their individuality. 
The Daksinatyas of Bana are the representatives of the Vai- 
darbhl and his Gaudas represent the Gaudi style. We have 
it as a tradition in Sanskrit literature that the Vidarbha coun- 
try is the home of grace and beauty. Bharata speaks of the 
beauty, Saukumarya, of the southerners in his Daksinatya 



Pravrtti.^ Though most of the provinces in the south are includ- 
ed by Bharata under Daksinatya, the chief place of the Kais'ikI 
vrtti and the Daksinatya pravrtti is Vidarbha. The concep- 
tion of the Daksinatya composition as abounding in Utpreksas 
found in Bana had changed and the Vaidarbhas had developed 
a graceful style. The Gaudas who were playing with sonorous 
sound in Bana’s time developed their style on the same lines, 
with their love for Aksaradambara embracing high -wrought 
ornate figures also. Thus in course of time, circles of literary 
critics, Kavya Gosthls, discussed poems and writings in terms 
of the two Ritis, the Vaidarbhi and the Gaudl. There was 
prevalent a dislike for the latter, since it abounded in excesses 
of sound effects and figure effects. In this time appear Bha- 
maha’s views on the two Ritis, disapproving of the method of 
criticism based on the two Ritis which called the Vaidarbha 
good and the Gaudiya, bad. It must be accepted that the 
Vaidarbha had many graceful features, was simple and sweet, 
with restraint in adornment, while the Gaudiya which began 
as a style distinguished by ornament, overdid it and deteriorat- 
ed. Bhamaha said : one need not condemn the Gaudi, nor 
praise the Vaidarbhi. They are two styles of writing, each 
characterised by certain distinguishing features. Provided 
the writings in either style have well developed thought ex- 
pressed in fine turns, not vulgar or insipid, and uninvolved, 
both are acceptable. Without these general features of good 
poetry, it will not be acceptable even if it is Vaidarbhi, *• If 

*51^ ^%oiTe?rT 

Bharata, N. S', p. 147. K. M. Edn. 

Kuntaka refers to the natural sweetness of southern music. 

p. 46. De’s Edn. V. J. 

Cf. also the Vaidarbha- vivaha-nepathya referred to by Kalidasa 
at the end of the Malavikagnimitra. 



these good features are present, it is acceptable, no matter if 
it is Gaudl. That is, Bhamaha wants to end indiscreet literary 
criticism led as if by^the nose by these two names, Vaidarbha 
and Gaudlya. Both styles have features which can be over- 
done ; consequently both have their vicious counterparts. 
Thus the sweetness, simplicity and the unadornedness of the 
Vaidarbhl can easily deteriorate into cloying liquids and nasals, 
and bare idea of insipid ordinariness. This is what Bhamaha 
says and it is but a sane view : 

ii i. 34-35. 

The Vaidarbha need not adorn itself very much ; but a mini- 
mum of Vakrata is needed to avoid Gramyata. When one 
has to praise a thing, it is neither enough nor beautiful to 
simply say, without adopting telling turns of expressions, 

‘ very much ’ etc. Says Bhamaha ; 

if I 

11 I. 36. 

Thus, accepting the current habit of distinguishing writing 
into two styles, Bhamaha would argue that both are acceptable, 
if th^y do not overdo their distinguishing features and possess 
■ the more general and necessary virtues of all good composi- 
tion. He points out the possibility of a good handling of the 

^ is not understood by D. T. Tatacharya 

S^iromani, in his Sanskrit gloss on Bhamaha called Udyanavrtti. 
See p. 17. hTM I ^ \ 3 

Then he tries to give some explanation. 



Gaudi andj similarly the possibility of a bad VaidarbhI. He 
would not stress these two catchwords very much but would 
emphasise more the other features of greater importance which 
all good composition! should have, viz,, 

?^^opland From this, we can now pass 

to consider the final position of Bhamaha. As one w^ho 
emphasises the above given features of all good poetry^ 
Bhamaha does I not propose to accept unthinkingly the 
differentiation of writing into Vaidarbha and Gauda at alL 
His is a double protest. First, it is against the partiality for 
the VaidarbhI and the aversion for the Gaudi. He says : a lay 
and blind world repeats w’^hat one has said, praises the 
VaidarbhI and condemns the Gaudi, even when the Gaudi is 
good and has good idea, sadartham api. Thus pleading for 
the possibility of a good Gaudi with the auxiliary argument of 
the possibility of a bad VaidarbhI, Bhamaha says that, per- 
sonally, he would not attach much importance to the two 
names VaidarbhI and Gaudi. As one w ho cares for the greater 
virtues of good poetry in general, he says that he accepts such 
composition as possesses those good qualities. He says that 
he cannot distinguish two styles and that such a thing is non- 
existent. But his opponents point out that, as for instance, 
the Kavya (lost) called the As'viakavams'a is VaidarbhI. His 
reply is, “ All right, call it whatever you please ; one gives 
names as he pleases and that does not matter much. There is 
no special kind of poetry called VaidarbhI. All poetic w ritihg 
is accepted because it is adorned by Vakrokti. 

3% II 



VO "N 

^*1 ^T^OT 11 

I. 30-33. 

From these verses of Bhamaha on the two styles, we can 
gather that in his time, some writers had held the Vaidarbhi 
as the better style and the Gaud! as the worse. Of the Vai- 
darbhi also we glean that 

and were considered by those writers as 

the distinguishing features. Vide sd. 34. If these ideas are 
stuck to too much, Vaidarbhi deteriorates : If the Artha is 
entirely Apusta, Avakra and Prasanna, it is insipid as ordinary 
talk. If it is very much addicted to the habit of giving a sense 
of sweetness to the ear alone, it is only like some song, heard 
and forgotten. 

m tTcf I! 

Nllakantha Diksita in his S'ivalilarnava, Canto I. 17- 

mT^ ^oi^sfq qM: q^iqisfq 11 

Ibid,, Canto I. 14.. 

In a similar manner we can also glean from Bhamaha’s 
remarks what features were attributed b}^ writers of his time 
to the GaudI, by writers who condemned it. These features 
can be gathered from verse 35 and they are Atyalamkara^ 
Akulatva etc. The GaudI they condemned had too much 
Aksaradambara and was Akula, at the sacrifice of idea, Anar-^ 
thya. This current of criticism against the GaudI continued 
to flow, despite Bhamaha's efforts to stop it. The good Gaud! 
envisaged by Bhamaha was however not demonstrated, in all 



probability, by the representatives of the GaudI and so the 
Gaud! came to mean a bad style, with excess of S'abda and 
Artha Alarhkara, poor in idea, hyperbolic and involved in ex- 
pression. It is this GaudI that is the antithesis in the first 
pariccheda of the Kavyadars'a of Dandin. By this time, the 
names had not yet become non-geograph ical ; for Dandin often 
refers only to the people of the east and the south, while 
referring to the two styles and not, like later writers, 
to the stereotyped modes of style without any geographical 

It is often said that Dandin represents a school called the 
‘ Guna school.’ In Bhamaha, at the beginning of chapter II, 
we find three Gunas, Prasada, Madhurya and Ojas, the former 
two going together as features of an Asamasa-sanghatana and 
the third, standing against both Prasada and Madhurya, as the 
Guna of Dlrgha-samasa-sarhghatana. While speaking of the 
two Margas, Bhamaha mentions Komalatva, S'ruti pes'alatva, 
and Prasannatva regarding the Vaidarbhl ; and while commend- 
ing the good Gaudi, he says that it must be Anakula, which 
means that there must not be very long compounds. Besides 
this implied and traceable connection between the Gunas and 
the two Margas, there is no definite mention, in Bhamaha, of 
Gunas as the constituting elements of a Marga. Dandin ex- 
pounds in the first chapter the Vaidarbha Marga which was 
considered the best style. It was so considered because of the 
presence in it of ten Gunas which constitute its life. Dandin 
generally says that the reverses of these ten Gunas are seen 
in the Gaudi which means bad poetry. A critical examina- 
tion of these ten Gunas has been made elsewhere by 
the present writer.^ Suffice it here to point out that some 

^ See my thesis Bhoja’s S'rngara Prakas'a, Vol. I, Part 2, Ch. 
on History of Gunas, pp. 282-293. 



Gunas are given by Dandin himself as excellences of both 

Dandin mentions the ten Gunas as the life not of poetry 
as such, but of the style called VaidarbhI. If, on the basis of 
Dandin’s formulation of Gunas, one says that he belongs to 
the Guna school, one can as well say that Dandin belongs to 
the Riti school. Really Dandin belongs to the Alarhkara 
school, much more than Bhamaha. For, to Dandin, Gunas, 
Rasas, Sandhyahga, Vrttyahga, Laksana, — all are Alarhkara. 
Apart from the word poetry, there is only one word for 
Dandin, viz,, Alarhkara. The full development of Dandin, as 
well as of Bhamaha, is seen in two directions in Bhoja and 

In poetic expression there is always a finally analysable 
scheme of two definite styles, the simple and the grandi- 
loquent, the plain and the elevated, the unadorned and the 
figurative. In the former, natural description of emotion, 
men and things is given with minimum artificial decoration. 
Svabhavokti and Rasokti, to borrow Bhoja’s classification, 
predominate in it. Colour, ornament, — Vakrokti dominates 
the latter. These two correspond to Dandin's two styles; 
only the Gaud! is Vakrokti run riot. Kuntaka’s Sukumara 
Marga, which emphasises Vakrokti less, belongs to the former 
class. Kuntaka’s Vicitra marga marks an emphasis on the 
Vaicitrya that Vakrokti imparts. Aristotle also gives only 
two styles, the good and the bad, the good being so by any 
sort of virtue, i.e,, good not only because of virtues of simpli- 
city, elegance etc., but by virtues of vigour etc., also. His bad 

’ Dr. S. K. De wrongly says in his Skr. Poetics II, p. 100 : 
“ The ten Gunas are non-existent in the Gauda.’" 

^See my Bhoja’s S'rngara Prakas'a, Vol. I, Part 1, p. 123; 
Part 2, p. 417. 



Style is the frigid style, resembling exactly Dandin’s GaudI, a 
style which overshoots its mark. The plain and elegant style 
of Demetrius corresponds to the Vaidarbhl of Dandin and the 
Sukumara of Kuntaka. The elevated and the forcible of 
Demetrius resembles the Vicitra Marga of Kuntaka and the 
good GaudI envisaged by Bhamaha. 

It is said that what we call Riti is not anything 
similar to what is called in English ‘ style.’ Dr. S. K. De 
sajns in his Skr. Poetics, II, p. 115 : “ It should be observed 
that the term Riti is hardly equivalent to the English word 
style, by which it is often rendered, but in which there is 
always a distinct subjective valuation.” Again on p. 116 r 
“ But, at the same time, the Riti is not, like the style, the 
expression of poetic individuality as is generally understood 
by western criticism, but it is merely the outward presentation 
of its beauty called forth by a harmonious combination of 
more or less fixed ‘ literary excellences’.” The word ‘ style ’ 
in English is not easily felt to be equivalent to the Sanskrit 
Riti mainly on two grounds : (i) It is said that while the 
English Style in all-comprehensive, the Sanskrit Riti com- 
prises only a fixed set of Gunas. (ii) Ritis as expounded by 
Sanskrit are only two or three or four or six, and are related 
to certain kinds of subjects or themes whereas the English 
Style is related to the author’s character. It is proposed to 
make plain in the course of this study of Riti that it is neither 
impossible nor incorrect to render Riti by the English word 
Style, that Riti comprehends not only Gunas, but Alankaras 
and Rasas also, that Ritis are not so few as two or six but 
really as infinite as poets and that at least one or two Alanka- 
rikas and poets have related Riti to the poet. It shall also be 
shown that there are always two conceptions of Riti, a higher 
and a larger one and a lower and a narrower one, a subjective 



one and an objective one, in relation to the poet and in relation 
to theme ; and that this is true of the English Style also, as 
can be seen from its history in w^estern literary criticism from 
Aristotle downwards. Actually, certain western writers find it 
not only possible but quite sensible and useful too, not only to 
classify style into a certain number of styles but also to relate 
these classified and standardized styles to subject or theme. 

As observed above, though Bhamaha does not definitely 
give in so many words the relation of Gunas and Riti, we can 
clearly see that his verses imply the theory of Riti as based 
on the Gunas. For he speaks of Komalatva, Prasannatva and 
S'rutipes'alatva regarding the VaidarbhI. But Bhamaha does 
not stop here.* He speaks further of Arthaposa, Vakrokti, 
Arthyatva, Nyayyatva and Anakulatva as features of a style of 
acceptable poetry. Certainly these are comprehensive features 
and stand for the very complete manner of writing. When 
we analyse Dandin, we see that not only Gunas but Alankaras 
also go to distinguish the Ritis. He says that the Gauda 
marga is characterised by Anuprasa which is a S'abdalarhkara, 
The flaw^ of S'aithilya, the reverse' of the S'lesa of the 
VaidarbhI, is a result of Anuprasa. 

I I. 44. 

Again, speaking of the reverse of the Guna called Samata, in 
Gauda marga, Dandin says : 

^ 11 I. 50. 

Madhurya involves S'rutyanuprasa. 

' In his article on the Gaudi Riti in Theory and Practise in 
LH.Q., Ill, 1927, Mr. Sivaprasad Bhattacharya renders ‘ Viparyaya ’ 
as misconception about or misapplication of the essentials of style. 



t I I. 52. 

Anuprasa in its Ulbana varieties is specialised in by the 

I I. 54. 

As a matter of fact, Dandin treats of the S'abdalahkaras only 
here. He treats of the Anuprasa here and keeps over the 
Yamaka for the third chapter. The only difference is that the 
Anuprasas of the Vaidarbhas are mild while those of the 
Gaudas are wild. 

^ 3 11 I. 58. 

3T^ TlflloiMT: 11 1-60. 

The Guna called Udara is no feature of the collocation like 
S'lesa. It relates to thought and the mode of its expression. 
When a noble and exalted description suggests a noble and 
exalted quality of the person or object described, it is called 
Udara Guna. This way of saying, so as to make the thing 
intended to be said deliver itself by implication or suggestion — 

is something beyond Guna and Alamkara. Nor is the second 
variety of Udara — S'laghyavis'esana, — on a par with S'lesa. 
The Guna of Kanti is similarly of a superior nature. It refers 
to that method of expression wherein the author shows 
restraint and moderation and avoids hyperboles. The Gaudas, 
on the other hand, love hyperboles. 



I I. 92. 

Similarly Samadhi Guna brings in its train Samasokti 
Alarhkara. Thus, an examination of Dandin shows that the 
Margas are characterised not merely by a set of fixed features 
which pertain to collocation alone. The Gunas mean much 
more than what they seem to. The Gunas themselves must 
be clearly understood. Riti cannot be demeaned by simply 
saying that it is called forth by a set of more or less fixed 
literary excellences. 

Vamana began grandly by declaring Riti as the soul 
of poetry. He however defined Riti as Padaracana, 
but qualified it with the word Visdsta. Vamana is the 
first writer to give a classification of Gunas into those of 
S'abda and those of Artha. The mere excellences of Bandha 
are S'abda gunas ; Riti there is at its lower level. The Artha- 
gunas lift up Riti to the higher position. The Artha- 
gunas are comprehensive and reach up to Rasa. The 
Arthaguna Ojas, Praudhi of various kinds, Madhurya which is 
Uktivaicitrya, S'lesa which is Ghatana of various kinds, Kanti 
which is brilliancy of Rasas — these comprehend poetic ex- 
pression in all aspects. Vamana himself emphasises the 
Arthagunas : 

I. 2. 20, 22. 

Thus these so-called Gunas comprehend Bandhagunas, 
Alamkaras and Rasas. Demetrius, while describing each style, 
gave each certain Bandhagunas, certain kinds of Alamkaras 
and certain emotional features also. 

Vamana defined his Gunas in such a way as to enable us to 
take them as characteristics of the best style of poetry. Gu^as 



^ which would pertain only to another Marga were not brought 
in by him. So, he could define the Vaidarbhl as the best 
style by reason of the fullness of all these Gunas in it, Guna 
^dkalya. So it is that he says that Paka or maturity of 
expression in Kavya is the clear and full presence, Sphutatva 
and Sakalya, of these Gunas. 

This view Vamana could hold by changing the meaning 
of some Gunas. To the two Ritis, Vaidarbhi and Gaudi, 
Vamana first added a third, the Pancali, another intriguing 
geographical name. The GaudI in Vamana is not the bad 
style in Dandin. It is a good style in which all the Gunas 
of the Vaidarbhl are present ; only it sheds some sweetness 
and delicateness and attains vigour and forcefulness. The 
Madhurya and Saukumarya of the Vaidarbhi are replaced by 
Samasabahulya and Ulbanapadas, with a greater degree of 
Ojas and Kanti. The Pancali is the Vaidarbhi devoid of 
Ojas and Kanti.* Of these three, Vamana asks poets to 
practise and achieve the Vaidarbhi style of poetry. 

^TT«T jniT, i 

I. 2, 14-18. 

From the three Ritis in Vamana, we pass to the four in 
Rudrata. Rudrata mentions the Vaidarbhi and the Pancali 
with a certain kinship which is found even in Vamana. 
Rudrata however adds a fourth style to go along with the 
Gaudiya. This new fourth Riti is the Latiya, another 
geographical name. The four are thus given in two sets and 
are, for the first time definitely dissociated from any poets of 

* It is noteworthy how the Alankaradambara of the Gaudas 
mentioned by Bana has not changed at all. . 

I — Vamana. For the contradiction here on the 
concept of Ojas and a full examination of Vamana’s Guijas, see 
my S'mgara Prakas'a, Vol. I, Part 2, pp. 293-299. 



any parts of the country which their names refer to. Rudrata 
relates them to the theme : 


While tracing the history of Riti, we can clearly see how 
no writer ever missed the idea that the Vaidarbhi stood for 
a certain sweetness while the GaudI was characterised by 
force and vigour. When the geographical significance of the 
Vaidarbhas alone favouring sweetness and its allied Gunas and 
the Gaudas alone practising Aksaradambara, Ojas etc., was 
lost, and all the RTtis were practised by all poets of all places, 
the sweetness of the one and the vigour of the other w ere 
thought of in connection with the theme by the same poet 
who commanded both ways of writing. Visaya-aucitya began 
to regulate the nature of Riti in the several parts of a poem. 
The Rasas and the Arthas pertaining thereto have their own 
quality of sweetness, vigour etc. These were studied by 
Bharata, and by others following him, in the concept of Vrtti. 
The Vrtti w^as applied from Drama to poetry.^ Kais'ikI is the 
\'rtti of S'rngara and Arabhatl of Raudra, Vira, Bhayanaka 
and Bibhatsa Rasas. To this Vh’tti, the Riti came to be 
related. The sweetness and delicateness associated wdth the 
Vaidarbhi made it possible to link it to the Kasdki Vrtti and 
the S'rngara Rasa, S'rngara, Kas'iki Vrtti and the Vaidarbhi Riti 
w^ent together always. The GaudI easily linked itself to Arabhatl 
Vrtti and Rasas like Raudra. The Pancali and the Latiya occu- 
pied middling positions, the former leaning more to the Vaidar- 
bhi and the latter more to the GaudL Thus the emotional 
situation came to determine the mode of expression. Hence 

* See below chapter on the history of Vrtti in Kavya. 




Bhoja treats of Ritis and Vrttis under Anubhava. The Vrtti 
differs from Riti as more intimately connected with Rasa and 
its ideas. To the Rasa, Riti was related on the basis of the 
verbal expression, the S'aljg^sahghatana. In this stage, the 
Gunas, Madhurya etc., which were still the constituents of 
Riti, become mere Sahghatanadharmas. We find the Locana 
saying while stating the Purvapaksa : 

30 TT: I ^ 

I ” p. 6. 

As Anandavardhana says, expression appropriate to Rasa 
is Vrtti ; the expression of Artha is the Vrtti of Kais'iki etc. ; 
the expression of S'abda is the Vrtti of Upanagarika etc. 
These S'abda Vrttis Upanagarika etc. are the Ritis. 

11 HI. 33. 

I qrqqjT?iRT«r ^qgiiTRqjT^iT: i ” ibid., vrtti. 

f^q\sfq 11 III. 53. 

Mammata says under Anuprasa jatis : 

q?qT,-^^T 'R: 11 IX. 3. K. Pra. 



ibid., vrtti. 


S'irigabhupala defines Riti as Pada-vinyasa-bhangl,andhas three 
Rltis Komala, Kathina and Mis'ra, — other names of Vaidarbhl, 
Gaud! and PancalL A late work called S'rngarasara (Madras 
MS.) follows S'ingaphupala completely, defines Riti as Pada- 
vinyasabhangl, accepts three varieties of it, Vaidarbhl, GaudI 
and Pancall, which it calls Komala, Kathina and Mis'ra. 

Rajas'ekhara’s main chapter, the third, on Riti, called 
Ritinirnaya, is lost. Still we gather some of his ideas on 
Riti in his description of the legendary Kavyapurusa’s Avatara 
in the beginning of his Kavya mimamsa, as also from his dramas. 
In his Kavyamimamsa, Rajas'ekhara speaks of three Rltis in 
the description of which he introduces a new distinguishing 
feature, viz., the use of Yogavrtti in abundance, the same 
to a less extent, and the use of Upacara. These are the 
features Rajas'ekhara attributes to the three^ : 




These three Rltis, Rajas'ekhara relates to the Des'as whose 
names they bear. He considers the Vaidarbhl as the best form 
of poetic style. For he says that when the spouse of Sahitya- 
vidya spoke to the Kavyapurusa in the Gauda style, he was ab- 
solutely indifferent ; when she talked in the Pancali style, he was 

^ Vide my article on Riti and Guna in the Agni Purana in 
I.H.Q. X, iv, 767-779. 



captivated only to a small extent, Isadvas'amvadikrta ; but 
when both reached the Daksinades'a and she spoke in the 
Vaidarbhi, he became ‘ Atyartham vas^amvada Rajas'ekhara 
pays his tribute to Vaidarbhi poetry by making the Kavya- 
purusa and Sahityavidya celebrate their nuptials in the capital 
of the Vidarbhas, Vatsagulma. 

I ^ ii;^4r^Rf0i;TFr i p. lo. 

In the mahgalas'loka to his Karpuramanjarl, Rajas'ekhara 
speaks of three Ritis, VacchomI, MagadhI and PahcalT. This 
VacchomI is the Prakrt form* of Vatsagulml, a name for 
Vaidarbhi given after the capital of the Vidarbhas, Vatsa- 
gulma. Why the GaudI has been substituted here by the 
MagadhI is not known. 

In his Balaramayana, Rajas'ekhara speaks of the \'ai- 
darbhl twice. In Act III, he says that the quality of Madhurya 
is supreme in the Vaidarbhi and in Act X, that the Vaidarbhi 
is characterised by Madhur3’a and Prasada and that Rasa is 
dominant in it. 

(а) I III. 14. 

( б ) — 


‘ Instead of thus deriving Vacchomi meaning Vaidarbhi from 
Vatsagulmi, Vasudeva, author of the commentary on the Karpura- 
mafijari says ; 

P. 3. K. M. Edn. 



H III. 50. 

=^t ^g«t I 

IfHT^ 5[^ W4' ^ 

^s4 -g^ 3^ %.; 4 fqqq; 11 x. 74. 

Dhanapala (first half of the 11th cent.) says in theTilaka- 

K. M. edn. p. 130. 

S'riharsa says in his Naisadha : 

>4?51Tsfe 1 III. 116. 

and again : 

3'inJiTgRsn^ft R9l%5!^?rTfl1% 

11 XlV, 91. 

Nilakanthadiksita waxes eloquent upon Vaidarbhi and its 
country in his Nalacarita nataka, Act III : 

fRT: 3^tR: flf^I^I ^T I 

R 59 ^ ^ ^^^3 II 

RTf^5ft — gi^t'i 53i ^ I 3^: 

^5*TrIT9T I RT t^iff fti%: I 

‘ It is not known if by this word Kanta, Rajas'ekhara means 
the gu^a Kanti in Dandin or uses it only in a general manner. 



21T, T^T ^TgT 

2n ^ JfsiTfq i 

qWT'Tf^f^ T? 

^^'sq>fsfq 5IT II 

To return to Rajas'ekhara, he has the following additional 
remarks about the literary habits of the poets of different 
places : 

^Tf^<iIT?7T: I ^<^1; I 3l4tgf^5fgqf?T- 

^SPT I Kavyamimamsa, p. 22 . 

The basis of each of these statements is not exactly known. 
We know only, from Dandin, that the Gaudas loved Samasa 
and that the remark about the Daksinatyas’ love for Taddhita 
is borrowed from Patahjali. Further, we do not exactly know 
what Rajas'ekhara means by mentioning separately Vaidarbhas 
and Daksinatyas. Perhaps, the latter are people further south 
or those in the south other than the V aidarbhas. 

In a verse on poet Bana and poetess S'llabhattarika, 
Rajas'ekhara gives a new definition of the Pancall, the 
basis for which is also not known. He says in it that the 
Pancall is the style in which S'abda and Artha are evenly 

STJ. 11^^51 I 

5fToilf^5 =? m II 

In Act X of the Balaramayana, Rajas'ekhara ascribes a 
peculiar style to Mithila. Thus he speaks of a Maithill style : 




m ^*^11 11 S'!. 95. 

The Maithili is here said to be characterised by three qualities : 

(i) 91=a?^51^srq 3iq?qqi^qf^q;q(JIJi:/.e., avoiding Atyuktis 

or flat hyperboles. This is Dandin’s and Bhoja's 

Kanti of the Vaidarbhl : 

qiiqfqfeqjHlcl 1 

(ii) This seems to be sparse use of compounds. 

{Hi) Yogaparampara ‘ which is given in his K. M. 

as characterising the Gaudl. 

The country of Mithila is nowhere mentioned in connection 
with the Ritis, except perhaps by one writer, S'rlpada, quoted 
by Kes'ava in Alahkaras'ekhara, who says that the Maithili 
has, like the Vaidarbhl, few compounds. 

to =q i 

^TT(qT II 

tol: q’^qi i 

11 p. 6. K. M. 50. 

^ Vide Appendix on Riti in the Agnipurana. The use of the 
feature Yogavrtti, Upacara etc., in distinguishing styles is found 
in Rajas'ekhara, Bhoja, Agnipurana and Bahurupamis'ra. The last 
says in his comrpentary on the Das'arupaka (Mad. MS.) : 

^ (1) qqre^iRqFqR (2) aq^t^Rai^ra: (3) 

qraRiiq, (4) 3?33ra^^Ri (5) f^3q«irasqftfq i ” 

The Sahitya mimamsa (TSS. 114) refers to the distinction of the 
Ritis on the basis of these four features, but rejecting these, 
accepts only the feature of Samasa, the first, as the basis of the 
distinction, a view which follows Rudrata (p. 87). The work notes 
also that Bhamaha has no fancy ^or the Ritis. 



From this remark of S'rlpada, we understand that the Maithill 
is the Magadhi/ the MagadhI which, along with the Pahcall 
and the Vaidarbhi (Vacchoml), is mentioned by Rajas'ekhara 
in his mahgalas'loka to the Karpuramahjari. Bhoja’s 
Sarasvatikanthabharana gives an absurd definition of MagadhI 
as a Khandarlti, formed when the Riti begun is left off! 

ITITT^t I This MaghadhI may or may 
not have been mentioned in the lost Riti chapter of the 
Kavyamimamsa. But in the available portion, Rajas'ekhara 
accepts only three Ritis and they are the Vaidarbhi, Gaudlya 
and PancalL He says again on p. 31, of his K. M. : 

'TraT^'t I 

Bhoja added two more Ritis to Rudrata’s four, the Avanti- 
ka and the MagadhI. The latter, as found in Rajas'ekhara, 
S'rlpada and Bhoja, has been noticed already. It is only the 
Avanti that is absolutely new. The classification and descrip- 
tion of these in Bhoja (S. K. A.) are very mechanical, arbitrary 
and unreal. It seems to be idle to examine Bhoja’s Latlya, 
MagadhI and Avanti. Why this complacent creation of 
geographical names was in fashion amongst these writers 
cannot be guessed." 

^ It may be suggested that the mention of Magadhi is due to 
the author being a Buddhist ; Buddha spoke in Magadhi bhasa. 

^ The following is a summary of the views of other minor 
writers on Riti. The older Vagbhata accepts only the Vaidarbhi 
and the Gaudi, one without any compounds and the other with 
compounds (K. M. Edn. p. 61). The younger Vagbhata recognises 
the three Ritis, Vaidarbhi, Gaudiya and Pahcali and defines them 
as dominated respectively by theThree Guijas, Madhurya, Ojas and 
Prasada (p. 31). S'ingabhupala (R. A. S.) accepts the Vai., the Gau., 



The treatment of style on the basis of theme is not absent 
from western criticism. Aristotle says that style should vary and 
thus be in accordance with emotion. ‘‘ But the style expressive 
of feeling suppose the case be one of assault in the style of a 
man in passion ; — ” A style of exultation for praise ; a style 

and the Pan. He borrows from Dandin for defining the Vaidarbhi; 
the two differences here are that he makes the ‘ Rasa’ in Dandin’s 
the 9 Rasas and takes the first case of Udara as 
Dhvani. He calls the Vaidarbhi, Komala ; Gaudi, Kathina ; and 
the Pahcali, Mis'ra. Leaving the Mis'ra, he contrasts the other 
two; Komala X Kathina ; Asamasa XDirghasamasa ; PrasadaX 
Asphutabandha ; AnisthuraksaraXNisthuraksara ; PrthakpadatvaX 
Granthilatya. Under Mis'ra Ritis, he recognises a Riti for every 
province, Andhra, Lati, Saurastrl etc. (p. 69). The Camatkara- 
candrika of VisVes'vara (Mad. MS.), who wrote in S^ihga’s court, 
casts away the old names, defines Riti as Padaghatana and gives 
four kinds of it, the only feature of differentiation accepted being 
Samasa-Asamasa, Madhyasamasa, Atidirghasamasa and Mis'ra 
(p. 61. Mad. MS.). This position corresponds to Rudrata’s which 
distinguishes Ritis on Samasa only, gives Vaidarbhi as the Riti of 
the collocation free from compounds and gives three Ritis, Pancali, 
Latiya and Gaudiya for the collocations with Laghu, Madhya and 
Ayata Samasas. (II, 3-0). Vidyanatha considers Riti as 

’ of the Kavya. See also Sahityakaumudi of Arkasilri, Mad. 
MS. R. 2391, p. 11, I Tippabhupala, at the end of his 

commentary on Vamana, considers Riti as the life-breath of poetry : 

p. 193. V. V. Edn. The only later writer, who still called 
Riti the Atman of poetry following Vamana, even when Rasa and 
Dhvani were ruling for long, is Amrtatiandayogin who says : 

ch. 5. Alaihkara Samgraha. This author treats of Rasa 
and Dhvani also. Keilhorn’s Central Provinces’ Catalogue, p. 104, 
mentions a work called “ Riti vrtti laksa^a ” by Vi tt hales' vara or 
Vitthaladiksita, which would be the only post-Ananda work of its 
kind, if it is a complete work by itself and is devoted exclusively 
to a consideration of Riti along with the allied Vrtti. Even then 
this tract must have dealt with Riti and Vrtti only as accepted in 
the scheme of Rasa and Dhvani. 

Simhadevagani, commentator on the Vagbhatalamkara, speaks, 
in three verses at the end of his commentary, of Lati (Hasya), 
P^cali (Karuna and Bhayanaka), Magadhi (Santa), Gaudi (Vira 
and Raudra), Vacchomi (Bibhatsa and Adbhuta) and Vaidarbhi 



with submission if in pity.” But compound words and 
plurality of epithets and foreign idioms are appropriate chiefly 
to one who speaks under the excitement of some passion — 
This style of a man in passion and a situation of assault, in 
which Aristotle mentions compound words as proper is an 
Ojas-dominated Riti, like Dandin’s GaudI, Samasabhuyistha. 
Aristotle says elsewhere that “ of various kinds of words, the 
compounds are best adapted to dithyrambs,” which are hymns 
to Bacchus, the wine-god, enthusiastic, wild and boisterous. 
Samasa gives the necessary Ojas to such a style. 

Speaking of the style called ‘ the Elevated ’, Demetrius 
says that there are certain subjects with the quality of elevation 
to which that style is thence suited. Such are subjects like 
scenes of battle. Surely these cannot be treated in the styles 
called ‘ the Plain ’ and ‘ the Elegant ’. They must be rendered 
in the styles called ‘ the Elevated ’ and ‘ the Forcible ’. De- 
metrius speaks of the Varnadhvani of Ananda in this con- 
nection, of how S'rutidusta, S'a, Sa, Ra etc., is promotive of 
Raudra rasa. Demetrius remarks that though violence (S'ruti- 
dusta) is a fault of composition, it is a necessary feature of the 

(S'rngara). We do not know how Vacchomi is different from \"ai- 
darbhi and how Vacchomi is suited to Bibhatsa and Adbhuta. In the 
next verse he gives, following Rudrata, the Pancall as having two 
or three words in a compound, Lati five or seven and Gaudi as 
many words as possible in a compound. The last verse is very 
puzzling ^ mfb i 

SI91- ^i^*^*^** U Hamsamitthu’s Hamsa vilasa (Geak edn. Ixxxi) 
speaks of the Lati (Hasya), Pancali (Karuna and Bhayanaka), 
Magadhi (S'anta), Gaudi (Vira and Bhayanaka), Vatsoma des’od- 
hhava (Bibhatsa and Adbhuta) and Vaidarbhi (S'fhgara). (ch. 46, 
p. 269). The expression Vatsoma-des'odbhava is quite correct and 
the editor need not have added a query here ; it means the Vacch- 
omi which Rajas'ekhara’s Karpuramanjari mentions ; but the Hamsa 
vilasa is wrong when it speaks of a Vaidarbhi in addition, for the 
Vacchomi is the same as the Vaidarbhi ; and it is also wrong to 
assign to the Vacchomi the Rasas Bibhatsa and Adbhuta. 



Forcible style, since “words hard to pronounce are forcible as 
uneven roads are forcible.” Even as the Sanskrit Alamkarikas 
speak of the VaidarbRi for S'rhgara rasa, Demetrius gives the 
Elegant as the style for elegant and graceful subjects like 
S'rhgara. He says : “ The materials of grace are the gardens 
of nymphs etc., etc.” One of the two deciding factors in ^ the 
Grand style ’, M. Murry says, is the theme, the other factor 
being vocabulary. In connection with the theme, “ the nature 
of the plot or muthos ”, he observes that the Grand style is 
adopted if superhuman or majestic figures are involved. “ If 
the characters of the plot are superhuman and majestic, it 
seems more or less necessary that their manner of speech should 
differ from that of ordinary dramatic poetry by being more 
dignified — .” (p. 140, Problem of Style.) “ The poet height- 

ens the speech of his superhuman characters in order that 
they may appear truly superhuman.” (p. 141). This is clearly 
a case of theme being a Niyamaka of style, a case of stand- 
ardised style, “ a technical poetic device for a particular end ” 
as Murry says of the Grand style. Thus, the linking of style 
to theme is not absent from western criticism. 

It is remarkable that there should be many points of 
similarity between western writers on the subject of style and 
Sanskrit Alamkarikas. M. Murry says in his Problem of Style : 
“ In the course of the approach, I examined two qualities of 
style which are not infrequently put forward as essential, 
namely, the musical suggestion of the rhythm and the visual 
suggestion of the imagery y and I tried to show that these were 
subordinate. On the positive side, I tried to show that the 
essential quality of style wdis precision : that this precision ^^■as 
not intellectual, not a precision of definition, but of emotional 
suggestion. . . p. 95. The musical qualities of rhythm 

etc., in the word;Structure come under S'abdaguna and 


S'abdalarhkara and the visual suggestion of imagery is Arthaguna 
and Arthalamkara. These two, of the realm of Vacya vacaka, 
are but the means, the vehicle, subordinate as Murry says. 
The emotional suggestion of Murry is Rasadhvani and precision 
thereof is served by Rasaucitya. The second Madhurya of 
Dandin, viz., Anuprasa— qi^ ^ q^5 =q | I, 55. 

II etc. corresponds to the fourth point 


mentioned by R. L. Stevenson in his essay on the Technical 
Elements of Style, viz,, ' contents of the phrase.’ He makes 
a detailed study and analysis and tabulates the consonantal 
sound effects of many passages. He gives this ias a quality 
of a master of style. Dandin says that when this S'rutyanu- 
prasa is left and Ulbananuprasa is resorted to by the Gaudas, 
harshness, Bandhaparusya and another flaw, S'aithilya, 
result. The concatenation becomes hardly pronounceable — 

SigqrafqqT 1] 

i i, 43-44. 

II ibid., 60. 

II ibid., 72. 

Stevenson thus concludes his section on ‘ contents of the 
phrase ’ : To understand how constant is this pre-occupation 
of good writers, even where its results are least obstrusive, it 
is only necessary to turn to the bad. There indeed you will 
find cacaphony supreme, the rattle of incongruous consonants 



only relieved by jaw-breaking hiatus, and whole phrases not to 
be articulated by the powers of man.” R. L. Stevenson speaks 
in this essay of his, of Samata, Vaisamya, Prasada and Caville, 
the Anarthakapadas or Aprayojaka padas of Vamana which 
hinder Prasada III, iii, 3.) 

and Mahiman’s Avakara. Ideas found in Pater’s exposition of 
style also have correspondences with ideas on Guna, Alamkara 
and Alamkaraucitya found in Sanskrit works. Schopenhauer 
has an essay on Authorship and Style, where, while dealing with 
the latter subject, he gives certain concrete good features of a 
good style of writing, judged to be good by reason of the pre- 
sence of those features. According to him thoughts must get 
their clearest, finest and most powerful expression ; thus, three 
qualities are emphasised by him, clarity and beauty, the sum 
total of these two, the power. In clarity is comprehended 
chiefly the virtue of simplicity which means the expression of 
thoughts “ as purely, clearly, definitely and concisely as ever 
possible.” This is secured by the use of words which are precise 
and which mean neither more nor less, which neither mean 
the thing vaguely nor mean something different. Grammatical 
precision and enough words are necessary. Clarity and gram- 
mar must not be sacrificed for the sake of brevity. Says 
Schopenhauer : “ On the other hand one should never sacrifice 
clearness, to say nothing of grammar, for the sake of being 
brief. . . . And this is precisely what false brevit}^ 

nowadays in vogue is trying to do, for writers not only leave 
out words that are to the purpose, but even grammatical and 
logical essentials.” Compare Dandin's Guna, Arthavyakti, 
which he defines as Aneyarthatva. It is a grammatical and 
logical necessity. In its absence, in the absence of words 
grammatically and logically essential, we have the Dosa called 



JT f| II K. A. I, 73-75. 

Not saying what must be said, out of a mistaken sense of 
brevity, is a kind of ‘ Vacyavacana ’ according to Mahimabhatta. 
Similarly, simplicity and precision are lost by adding things 
and words which are unnecessary. This is Mahiman’s Ava- 

TO, ^SqT=E?TTO I P- TSS. edn. 

These words are surplusage and are due to proverty of thought 
or an ambition to write a grand style. These merely fill so 
much of space still vacant in a verse, Padapurana. Schopen- 
hauer says : If \vords are piled up beyond this point they 
make the thought that is being communicated more and more 
obscure. To hit that point is the problem of style and a 
matter of discernment ; for every superfluous word prevents 
its purpose being carried out.” This is exactly what Vamana 
means by his Arthaguna Prasada which is the use of words 
exactly sufficient for conveying the idea. 

I III, ii, 3. 

Other Sanskrit writers also have dealt with Aprayojaka 
•epithets and words which do not nourish the idea but are 



mere verbiage affected for attaining a grandiose style and 
adopted to cover one’s poverty of idea and imagination. For, 
these words, Mahiman calls and To Mahi- 

man, these out-of-place words are the literary Apas'abdas. 

sp: ” p. 121. TSS. 

edn. Schopenhauer condemns indefiniteness, vague words and 
enveloping trivial ideas in the most outlandish, artificial and 
rarest phrases. ‘ ^ says Dandin ; 

that Prasada is the use of well-known words which easily give 
their sense ; that as against this, certain writers think that they 
must look learned and, in the words of Schopenhauer, ‘ resent 
the idea of their work looking too simple and resort to lexico- 
graphical rarities. Schopenhauer speaks of two styles, one 
good and the other bad, the former being characterised mainly 
by simplicity, clarity and precision, and the latter by prolixity, 
vagueness and word-pomp. He seems to describe only Dandin’s 
Vaidarbhl and GaudL Of those who favour the latter, 
Schopenhauer says that they ‘delight in bombast’, that their 
writing is generally ‘ in a grand puffed up (Dipta of Dandin), 
unreal, hyperbolic (Dandin’s Atyukti, the reverse of the 
Saukumarya Guna) and acrobatic style.’ (Prahelikapraya 
says Bhamaha). Dandin condemns not only Ulbana Anuprasa 
(S'abdalamkara) and Yamaka which is Duskara and ‘ Naikanta 
madhura ’, but also Arthalarhkara dambara. He prefers deli- 
cateness, fineness and natural grace which give poetry a power 
which no rhetorical ornament can ever impart to it. 

JTT55fT?>sfq | 

Compare Schopenhauer : “ An author should guard against using 
all unnecessary rhetorical adornment, all useless amplification, 



and in general, just as in architecture, he should guard 
against an excess of decoration, all superfluity of expression, — 
in other words, he should aim at chastity of style. Everything 
redundant has a harmful effect. The law of simplicity and 
naivete applies to all fine art, for it is compatible with what is 
most sublime.” 

It shall be considered now whether the linking of Riti to 
the poet and his character and the idea of the infinity of Riti 
is or is not present in Sanskrit Alarhkara literature. Aristotle 
described only one good style and its qualities and contrasted 
it with a bad style called the Frigid which overdid ornamenta- 
tion. He refuted also others who spoke of different styles 
such as the Agreeable. Fie argued that there was no end when 
one began attributing to styles all sorts of ethical qualities like 
restraint etc. An emphasis on the relation of style to the 
author makes it impossible to speak of style in general or 
define its features. Only a few concrete qualities related to 
the actual S'abdas, the Sanghatana, Padas and Varnas, and to 
the theme can be considered while defining or classifying style. 
Thus, previous to Aristotle, some had spoken of the Agreeable 
style. After Aristotle, some were speaking of three styles, 
Grave, Medium and Attenuate, to suit the threefold purpose 
of oratory, moving, pleasing and pleading. Just before Deme- 
trius wrote, some held styles to be two, the Plain and the 
Elevated. Demetrius added two more, the Elegant and the 
Forcible. Plainness stood against elevation. A styde is 
specially decorated for effect or is plain. From another point 
of view, styles can be classified into two, the Elegant (or 
graceful) and the Forcible. It is not one principle of classifi- 
cation that gives us these four styles. The Plain may be 
elegant or forcible ; the elevation given to a style may be 
elegant or forcible. But naturally, plainness and elegance go 



together and so also elevation and force. The Plain and the 
Elegant of Demetrius are represented by Vaidarbhl in Sanskrit. 
The Elevated and the^ Forcible correspond to the good Gaudi 
found envisaged in Bhamaha, the Frigid and the Affected styles 
in Demetrius being the bad Gaudi in Dandin. The two corres- 
pond to Sukumara and the Vicitra Margas in Kuntaka. 
Saukumarya and Ojas — Plainness and Elegance, Elevation and 
Force — these finally give us two Ritis. Bhatta Nrsimha, a com- 
mentator on Bhoja’s Sarasvatlkanthabharana (Madras MS.) says 
that of the Gunas of Dandin, two are important, Saukumarya 
and Ojas, as being the Asadharana gunas of the two Margas. 

“ (2^) gq: 3 qm: 

^^RCriT: I p. H. Mad. MS. This final analysis of style into two 
is neither impossible nor absurd. While treating of the Formal 
Element in Literature in Ch. IV of his work ‘ Some Principles 
of Literary Criticism ’, Winchester has the following : “ But 
while individuality is not to be classified, it may be said that 
there are, in general, two opposite tendencies in personal ex- 
pression : on the one hand to clearness and precision ; on the 
other to largeness and profusion. The difference between the 
two may be seen by comparing such poetry as that of Mathew’ 
Arnold w ith that of Tennyson or such prose as that of News- 
man with that of Jeremy Taylor. Minds of one class insist 
on sharply divided ideas, on clearness of image, on temper- 
ance, and precision of epithet. Their style we characterise as 
chaste or classic. The other class have a great volume of 
thought, but less well-defined ; more fervour and less temper- 
ance of feeling, more abundant and vivid imagery, more w ealth 
of colour, but less sharpness of definition. Their thoughts 
seem to move through a haze of emotion and often through a 
lush grow th of imagery. They tend to be ornate and profuse 
in manner, eager in temper ; they often produce larger and 
deeper effects, but they lack restraint and suavity. It is a 
contrast not peculiar to literature, but running through all 


forms of art. . . . The one makes upon you the impres- 

sion of greater delicacy, temperance, charm : the other, the 
impression of greater mass, complexity, power. We are not 
called upon to pronounce either manner absolutely better than 
the other The last sentence here echoes Bhamaha's 
attitude towards the distinction of style into Vaidarbhl and 
GaudI and the claim of superiority for the former. From this 
passage, it is also seen that despite the infinite variety of 
writers’ personality, it is yet possible and sensible too to find two 
broad divisions, one favouring virtues of subdued beauty and 
the other, exhuberance ; that a subjective and personal basing 
of style does not preclude the possibility of a classification or 
definition of style. In this passage of Winchester again, it 
seems as if Kalidasa’s style is described and contrasted with 
that of Bhavabhuti and Bana ; it looks as if good Vaidarbhl and 
a good handling of the Gaud! are considered here ; we are 
clearly reminded of Kuntaka’s two Margas, the Sukumara and 
the Vicitra, the one dominated by beauty that is mainly natural^ 
Sahajas'obha, and the other by ornamentation, Aharyas'obha, 
the one in Svabhava-ukti and Rasa-ukti, and the other in 
Vakrokti, the one displaying greater S'akti and the other, greater 
Vyutpatti. While the former style is a rare gift, it is very 
difficult to be successful in the latter ; for the path of orna- 
mentation and elevation has many pitfalls, and frigidity, arti- 
ficiality and ornateness are easily committed. Says Kuntaka : 


II ' V. J., I. 43. 

‘ Strangely en oujh, Padmagupta calls the Vaidarbhi the 
‘ sword-edge-path,’ — 

HfW: II Navasahasankacarita, I. 5. 



Vide Vrtti also p. 58. Hence it is that critics do not favour 
it. It is the deterioration of Vicitramarga that is Daiidin’s 
Gaudi. It is because of this difficulty that Demetrius’s Elevated 
and Forceful styles become, in the hands of lesser artists, the 
Frigid and the Affected styles. Hence it is that the critics 
always prefer the former. Says Winchester : “ But it would 
seem that, in literature at least, the classic manner is the 
culmination of art. Precision, in the wide sense, must be the 
highest virtue of expression ; and it is this precision, combined 
with perfect ease, that constitutes the classic manner.” 
“ Individual tastes may justly differ; but the ultimate verdict 
of approval will be given to that style in which there is no 
overcolouring of phrase, no straining of sentiment ; which 
knows how to be beautiful without being lavish, how to be 
exact without being bald ; in which you never find a thicket 
of vague epithet.” It is of this style, called by him Sukumara, 
that Kuntaka says : 

II V. J., I. 29. 

Kuntaka is the greatest exponent of the Riti. That it 
comprehends all aspects of expression has been well realised 
by him. He casts off the old names which have geographi- 
cal associations, dead for a long time, and forges new 
nomenclature on the basis of a fundamental classification of 
the manners of expression, on the basis of the more prevail- 
ing tendencies among masters in Sanskrit literature. He also 
shows how each Marga or Riti or style is characterised not by 
certain Bandhagunas only, but by a certain attitude in using 
Alankaras and delineating Rasas also. Above all, he is the 
only Sanskrit writer who realised very strongly the final basis 



of Style in the character of the poet and consequently related 
Riti to the writer. 

Kuntaka first refers to the geographical Ritis, Vaidarbhl, 
Gaud! and Pancali. He says that old writers give these three 
Ritis and call them Uttama, Madhyama and Adhama. This 
point of view Kuntaka objects to, for styles of poetry depend- 
ent for their origin on poetic genius and craftsmanship, upon 
S'akti and Vyutpatti in poets, cannot be spoken of like certain 
kinds of ‘ Des'acara ’ like marriage, permissible or obtaining 
in certain parts of the land. 

«Tiq^ I I fw 51^^ 

fg?ItTTJn^Frfg 55?TTgT^; 

P. 46 

Then Kuntaka criticises the view that holds these three 
Ritis as Uttama, Madhyama and Adhama. If the Gaudi and 
the Pancali are not good, why treat of them in the S'astra^ ? 

I ^ ^ m]- 

I P. 46. 



If however the names Vaidarbhi etc., are meant only as 
names and do not mean any geographical connection with 
poetry, Kuntaka has no -objection. 


Kuntaka then gives his idea of Riti that it is based on the 
character of the poet, Kavisvabhava. He accepts that this 
Kavisvabhava is infinite, but generally speaking, he says that 
there can be indicated three main types. 

i p. 47. 

The three styles thus indicated by him are the graceful, the 
Striking and the mixed, Sukumara, Vicitra and Madhyama. 
The Sukumara is the style of certain poets of a similar tem- 
perament and it is suited to certain situations. Similarly the 
Vicitra. The third combines the features of both the styles. 
All the three are beautiful and have their own charm. It 
is absurd to suppose that one is good, the other bad or the 
third passable. 

I Q:33(|q=5^qT- 

^ This paragraph is concluded by Kuntaka in the words : 

On the basis of this, Dr. S. K. De 
says on p. 386 of his Skr. Poe. Vol. II that Kuntaka was an advo- 
cate of the Alariikara school and meant to make light of the Riti. 
Fot a correct statement of the Kuntaka’s view on Riti, however, 
see the same writer’s Introduction to his Edn. of the Vakrokti Jivita. 
pp. xxxii-xxxiii. 



5f?n I P. 47. 

Raleigh, in his book on Style, speaks of the ‘ soul ’ in 
style. He quotes Pater who says “ As a quality of style, soul 
is a fact.’’ What is this soul ? Raleigh interprets it as ‘ spirit*. 
He says in this connection : ‘ Ardent persuasion and deep 
feeling enkindle words, so that the weakest take glory.’ This 
is the quality of sincerity he speaks of earlier. Analysed, this 
resolves into an emphasis on Rasa and the writer’s attention 
to its supreme expression. There is another sincerity which 
is artistic perfection and which sometimes modifies the sincer- 
ity of emotion. In the former case, the poet is true to Rasa 
and Bhava, and only to them. In the latter case, he thinks of 
how best to present that feeling in a setting of words. This 
anxiety for artistic perfection calls forth style, figures etc. 
Those who are impelled by the latter, the artistic sincerity, are 
followers of the Vicitra Marga. Those that are absorbed in 
the Rasa and Bhava and present them in their own glory are 
followers of the Sukumara Marga. Ideas and words for these 
sprout out of an ever fresh imagination ; there is always an 
enough ornament which is effortless; the natural beauty of 
things has been preferred there for artificial adornment ; at 
every step establishing an emotional appeal, it is of unpre- 
meditated grace. 

: II 



^ m 11 


ffRont^fltT^nJl^^^ ^?T: 11 V. J., I. 25-29. 

The main feature of this style is that whatever beauty it 
possesses is all natural, Sahaja ; poetic genius and imagination 
and not pure craftsmanship and scholarship form the basis of 
this style. The things of the world and Rasa and Bhava are 
given in all the beauty of their very nature and this first- 
instance-expression is not refashioned in the w^orkshop of figure. 

That such a definition of style is all-comprehensive need 
not be pointed out. But Kuntaka also speaks of certain Gunas 
as characterising his Margas. Of the Sukumara Marga he says, 
Madhurya is the first Guna. It is defined as the un-compound- 
ed use of words and a certain grace of the S'abda and Artha — 
and The insistence 

on Madhurya as the use of Asamastapadas * is for securing 
clarity of the idea. The words of emphasis, heightenings and 
low^erings, in a sentence can have their point only if the words 
remain separate ; their emphasis is lost when they are huddled 
into a compound. Samasa always hampers understanding. 
Says Mahimabhatta : 

' Cf. Vamana, III. i. 20. qTf!fq[ I . . 

^ I P* 79. V. V. Press Edn. 



^T*5F«I<Tmsikt I 

m — V. V., p. 53. 

The next Guna of the Sukumara Marga is Prasada, the 
quality by virtue of which the idea is given to us without any 
difficulty. This Prasada refers to both Rasa and the idea or 
Artha which forms its v^ehicle. The idea may be expressed 
with Vakrata to give point to it but such turn or deviation 
adopted should not obscure the idea or take it into the dark.' 
Here also the use of the uncompounded words and words of 
which meanings are well knowm, 

are the primary means. The third Guna is Lavanya^ 
which refers more to the S'abdas and the Varnas, which 
should have an indescribable beauty floating over them. Any 
kind of S'abdalamkara adopted for this purpose should have 
been done with ease and done with moderation. Ere the words 
as messengers of ideas deliver their meanings to the mind, their 
Lavanya affects the sensibilities of the responsive reader. 
Similar in nature and borrow ed from the same field is the fourth 
Guna given by Kuntaka, Abhijatya. A certain softness of texture 
and delicateness of words making the mind feel them form 
this quality of Abhijatya, a quality pre-eminently realisable 
only by the Sahrdaya and hardly describable in so many w’ords. 

'V.J., I. 31. 

* Cf. Dandin. and Bhamaha, II. 1. 

mii ^ I ^ u 



The Vicitra Marga of Kuntaka is a style dominated by 
Vakrata. It is a flashy style, gleaming all over with gold dust. 
It is intricately worked and wrought with design and gem, 
Alaihkara leads to Alarhkara ; ere one effect is off our mind, 
another is on. 

II V. J., I. 35. 

A style which reminds us of V^almlki's description of 
Ravana’s Puspaka— ‘ ^ ’ and ‘ 

every bit worked with care and craft and at 
every step equally striking wdth some speciality.^ The des- 
cription of this Marga also, as made by Kuntaka, is all- 
comprehensive, referring to every aspect of expression. (V. 

1, 34-43, pp. 56-66). 

Though Kuntaka has indicated two major varieties of 
style, he is fully aware that style is not classifiable. He says 
that Marga or style is infinite in variety and subtle in differ- 
ence ; for it is based on the poet’s nature. 

I =51 i 

^F^TT ^ ifRK^JfF2fT?RfW: I 


V. J.. p. 46. 

’ Adopting a Sanskritic comparison, we can say that the Suku- 
mara Marga is like the beautiful Kulahgana, and the Vicitra Marga 
like the brilliant Gaijika. 


I Ibid., p. 47. 

Though character is subtle and infinite, differing with each 
person, it is possible to say that there are three classes, the 
Sukumara and the Vicitra types and that of those who have 
both in varying proportions. The Sukumara nature of a writer 
affects this Vyutpatti and practice of writing which becomes 
stamped with that quality. Vyutpatti and Abhyasa bring out 
his Svabhava. The poet’s Svabhava is clearly expressed in the 
writing. Is this not the expression of the writer’s personality, 
his soul ? What else does Kuntaka say in the words : 

sfw 3HT- 

^ I V. J., p. 47. 

Again Kuntaka emphasises the infinite variety of style and its 
basis in the author’s nature. He takes the well-known poets 
and assigns them to the different styles. Matrgupta, Mayuraja 
and Manjira are exponents of the third combined Marga. 
Their poetry has a natural grace which they have rendered 
attractive with some decoration also. Kalidasa and Sarvasena 
<the author of the Harivijaya, mentioned by Ananda in Ud. 
Ill) are masters in the Sukumara Marga, their poetry being 
the product of natural genius and appealing by their natural 
beauty. Banabhatta is the greatest representative of the 
Vicitra Marga and Bhavabuti and Rajas'ekhara also belong 
to this class. 

STR 3?r: 



f 4 ??f 5r^;TT%»TiTTf^f I ^51 

sn^ ^fsnoi^ w{\^ spvnjft;^- 

(?) I cl^T?^ll!?l^|5r I 

^ I ^ gsTWff^ 

I V. J., p. 71. 

Similar is the view of Dandin also. He describes two 
Margas that can clearly be distinguished, for, he says, Ritis 
are infinite and their differences very subtle. So subtle is the 
character of one’s writing from that of another that it is as 
difficult to point out their differences as to describe in so 
many words the difference between various kinds of sweetness, 
of sugarcane, milk etc. Dandin says : 

31^^^ fw *nn: w^' "TOrq; i 

II I. 40. 

cTSlTfq 5T ^^Tl?RTi II I. 101-2. 

S'aradatanaya says on Riti in his Bhavaprakas'a : 

5R^RR3iTf^: I 


Ch. I, pp. 11-12, lines 21-24 


^ II 

Ibid., p. 12, lines ^-2* 

As explained by Bhoja, 

irarf^fd i s. k. a., ii. 17. 

Riti is the characteristic way of a writer. The other words 
used as synonyms are Gati, Marga, Panthah and Prasthana. 
In Tamil and especially while our Rasikas appreciate our 
musicians, we hear of the particular Pantha, Va^i or Nadai 
of each artist. All these words mean style. A poet of mark 
has a style. To posses a distinct style is to be a poet of mark. 

q fqqj ii 1. 10. 

II I. 17. 

— Nllakantha Diksita, Gahgavatarana Kavya. 


RiTI IN THE Agni Purana 

The Alarikara section in the Agni Purana is a hopelessly 
loose heaping of all sorts of ideas taken from this and that writer 
and does not deserve to be treated seriously as representing 
any systematic tradition. Dr. De supposes in his Sanskrit 
Poetics that it represents a systematic tradition which stands 
separate from that of the orthodox Kasmirian writers and 
which is followed by Bhoja. It is not a Purana compiler of 
such a nature that hints at new paths in special S'astras and 
surely the compiler who borrows from Tantravarttika, Bhartr- 
mitra, Bharata, Dandin and Ananda, may well borrow from 
Bhoja, who takes credit for the new Rasa theory propounded 
by him in his S'rhgaraprakas'a. The truth therefore is that 
the Alahkara section in the Agni Purana is definitely later 
than Bhoja, from whom it borrowed not only the Ahahkara- 
Abhimana idea of Rasa expounded in his S'rhgaraprakas'a and 
already referred to in his Sarasvatikanthabharana, V. 1, but 
also some S'abdalahkaras and other ideas. 

The Alahkara section of the Purana is spread over eleven 
chapters, (chs. 337 to 347). The first chapter deals with 
Kavya and of it, the Purana says that Rasa is the life, S'l. 
357133 places Rasa above Vagvaidagdhya which can be said 
to be identical with the concept of Vakrokti as applying 
generally to poetic expression as such and as a whole. The 



next chapter deals with drama. The third is completely 
devoted to Rasa and from this third chapter up to S'loka 17 
of the sixth chapter, the subject dealt with is Rasa. For> 
the fourth which speaks of Ritis and Vrttis, deals with 
Buddhyarambha-Anubhavas ; the fifth which is called 

deals with S'arirarambha Anubhavas, such as 
the Alankaras of the Alambanas in the shape of damsels, the 
glances etc. ; and the first part of the sixth again deals with 
Rasa. The rest of the sixth, and the seventh treat of S'abda- 
lankara and are followed by the eighth speaking of Artha- 
lankara. Chapter 345 describes Ubhayalankara, chapter 346, 
Gunas and the last chapter (347), Dosas. 

Vrtti is Cesta and Pravrtti is Vesa or Aharya. Riti is 
Vacana or speech.^ Says Rajas'ekhara, and following him 
Bhoja also in his S'r. Pra. : 

I (K. M., p. 9) 

Vrtti is dramatic action as such and one of its varieties 
is Bharatl which however, being speech, is the Vacikabhinaya 
which is examined from the point of view of various Ritis. 
Aharya is invariably Nepathya, dress and make-up. No 
doubt, it forms a part of Vrtti, even as Rlti forms a part of 
Vrtti. We find the graceful dress included in the definition of 
the Kais'iklvrtti — ^ etc. In graceful action, graceful 

dress also is comprehended. Therefore Vrtti and Pravrtti are 
intimately related, as Shakespeare also says, ‘ apparel oft pro- 
claims the man.' As the Visnudharmottara says, Pravrttis are 
Aharya which is dress, is Pravrtti — Vesavinyasa. 

‘ See my article on Vrttis in JOR., Madras, vol. VI, part 4 ; 
vol. VII, parts 1 and 2. 

’ Vide JOR., Madras, vol. VII, part. I, pp. 49-51. 



These three, Riti, Vrtti and Pravrtti (speech, action and dress) 
are all Anubhavas, and are classed as by Bhoja 

in chapter XVII of bis S'rngara Prakas'a.* S'ihgabhupala 
also follows Bhoja and says in his RAS., I, p. 64 : 

Following Bhoja’s S'r. Pra. the Purana also considers the 
three, Riti, Vrtti and Pravrtti as Buddhyarambhanubhava : 

? g(?l) I 

rfR I1 (339/53, 54.) 

The Buddhyarambhas; Riti, Vrtti and Pravrtti, form the 
subject-matter of the next chapter (ch. 340). In ch. 339, sds. 
44-45 begins the treatment of Anubhavas : 

3TR»»T ^ ^ 11“* 

S'ls. 46-50 describe qJT s'ls. 51-53 (first 

half), 5155T s4s. 53 (second half), 54 and ch. 340 

describe and ch. 341, as is said in its first verse, 

describes 1 These are all Anubhavas and are called 

Abhinayas. From the point of view of the four kinds of 
Abhinaya, these are re-distributed and the study of Anubhavas 
closes with s'l. 2 of ch. 342, after which some general 
aspects of Rasa are taken up. Vagarambha is Vacika ; Mana- 
arambha is Sattvika (Sattva— manas ; ff 

says Bhoja in his S'r. Pra., ch. XI) ; S'arirarambha is Ahgika 

* pp. 208-236, vol. Ill, Mad. MS. ; vide also S'aradatanaya 
who follows Bhoja. Bha. Pra., pp. 11-12. 

^ See Bhoja. SKA., V, S'l. 40, p. 477. 



and Pravrtti which is one of the three Buddhyarambhas is 
Aharya/ What about the other two Buddhyarambhas, Riti 
and Vrtti ? Vrtti pertains to all action. Its first variety 
called Bharati and the Buddhyarambha called Riti are Vaci- 
kabhinaya and are to be taken along with the Vagarambhas, 
Alapa etc. According to the traditional meanings, Arabhati 
will be Ahgikabhinaya, Sattvatl Vrtti will be Sattvikabhinaya 
and Kais'iki Vrtti will be all Abhinaya that is graceful. But 
to adopt the more correct meanings of these concepts, as 
explained in my paper on the Vrttis in the JOR., Sattvatl will 
go with Sattvikabhinaya and Arabhati and Kais'iki will go with 
all Abhinayas, forceful and graceful respectively. 

Chapter 340 of the Parana is called Ritinirupana. Cor- 
rectly speaking, it must be called 

for, in the foregoing chapter, nnd 

have been dealt with and its succeeding chapter (ch. 
341) treats of As it is, it treats of not only Ritis but 

of Vrttis also. This is the smallest chapter in the whole 
section and of its eleven verses, the first four are concerned 
with Ritis. Then begins a treatment of Vrttis. S'l. 5 enume- 
rates the four Vrttis ; s4. 6 defines Bharati and up to the first 

II 342/2 

This verse does not mean that Riti, Vrtti and Pravrtti, which 
are the three Buddhyarambhas, are Aharya. How can speech and 
action be two varieties of dress ? One cannot contend that the 
Purana has a new theory to expound viz,y dress means speech and 
action also. The last part of the verse really mean^that Pravrtti, 
which is one of the Buddhyarambhas, is the Aharyabhinaya 
f5ig, ?JT gT 0- Even such a 

clumsy text as the Agni Purana cannot mistake Aharya as any 
thing but dress. See also IHQ, *X, no. 4, 1934, pp. 767-779, where 
I have reconstructed and interpreted many of the passages in this 
section of the PuraQa. 



half of s'l. 10, we have the varieties of Bharati 
described. Then there are two lines, one giving a short defini- 
tion of Arabhatl and the other abruptly stopping in the midst 
of the enumeration of the varieties of Arabhatl. There still 
remains to be treated the fourth variety of Arabhatl, the 
whole of the Kais'ikI and the Sattvati Vrttis and the whole 
subject of Pravrttis. Therefore I think that the text of the 
chapter as printed in the Anandas'rama Series, is incomplete.* 
The whole of the Alahkara S'astra is included in the 
Vaeikabhinaya section of the Natya S'astra which is one fourth 
of drama, being the Bharati VTtti. This Bharati Vrtti is 
studied and analysed into Laksanas, Gunas and Alamkaras. 
Closely akin to these is a composite study of the Bharati 
Vrtti in terms of Ritis or Margas, which was attempted at a 
later time. Still another study of the Bharati Vrtti is what 
Bharata gives us'in chapter XXIV as the twelve ‘ Margas of 
the Vaeikabhinaya. The expression in the shape of Alapa, 
Vilapa etc. can itself be examined from the point of view' of 
Laksanas and Alahkaras and of the Ritis of Dandin. There is 
little difference betw-een the text of a drama and a Kavya. 
The Vaeikabhinaya portion is often treated as Kavya. All 

ITT*!? f| qTfiTlfiTiTTR??^g!T; It 

N. S'. XXIV. 49-57. 

Here, if one wants verbal identity in the shape of the word 
Margay one can have it, but much value is not attached to this fact 
that Vilapa etc. are also called Margas. Anyway such occurrence 
of the word Mctrga in Bharata is to be noted by one interested in 
the history of the word Marga, as it is applied as a synonym of Riti. 



somf: concepts of ALANKaRA S'ASTRA 

Kavya is drama of the Bharati Vrtti. That and the 

realm of PlU flint are identical and that the Ritis as pointed 
out in a study of a drama’s Vacikabhinaya are identical with 
the Ritis pointed out in a Kavya will be plain on a persual of 
S'ihgabhupala’s treatment of Ritis in his R.A.S. 

The question of what things constitute the differentia 
of the various Ritis, I have tackled in the main chapter 
on Riti above and in the chapter on the * History of 
Gunas ’ in my work on Bhoja’s S'rhgaraprakas'a. Also, in 
the third instalment of my paper on Vrttis in the J.O.R., 
VII. 2, I have pointed out some facts which are relevant to 
this discussion. An analysis of Dandin’s Gunas shows the 
existence in them of such things as Alahkara, Samasa and 
metaphorical usage. According to Rudrata the Ritis are 
Samasa Jatis. Vaidarbhi is the collocation with no compound 
while the compounded collocation, according to the number 
of w’ords compounded, produces the Pahcall, the Latlya or 
the Gaudl. Another line of thought show's us the develop- 
ment of Ritis as Anuprasa Jatis, varieties of Vrttyanuprasa. 
These appear in Bhamaha, are clearly formulated in Udbhata’s 
K.A.S.S., and are called merely Vrttis by Ananda. By the time 
we reach Mammata, the three Vrttyanuprasa J atis become ident- 
ical w ith the three Ritis, viz., Vaidarbhi, Pahcall and Gaudl. 
This line of enquiry lights up the early history of Riti and in 
Dandin’s treatment of it we find all these ideas. For, w hat is 
Dandin’s Samadhi Guna, if it is not metaphorical usage ? What 
is Ojas, if it is not the Samasa on the basis of which Rudrata 
defines the Ritis ? Again, what is the first S'abda variety of 
Dandin’s Madhurya except the sweetness born of Anuprasa, 
on the basis of which S'abdalahkara, three Vrttis are born and 
w^hich eventually get identified with the three Ritis ? (Dandin, 
I, 51-58.) As a matter of fact, the subject of Anuprasa is 



dealt with by Dandiii only in chapter I as comprehended in 
his Madhurya Giina of one variety pertaining to S'abda (for, 
of the other Madhiir^^a of Agramyta, we have the two sub- 
divisions of S'abda and Artha) and not in the chapter on 
vS'abdalahkara, a fact which has misled Mr. K. S. Ramaswamy 
Sastri ^ to say that Aniiprasa S'abdalahkara is absent from 
Dandin. Even Yamaka is touched here by Dandin but is 
left out for special treatment in the S'abdalahkara section. 
And what is this S'abda Madliiirya of Dandin, viz. Anuprasa, 
except S'abdalahkara ? When we come to Vamana, we have 
even Rasa coming in as constituting the Guna of Kanti of 
Artha, in the study of Riti. Therefore it cannot be said 
simply and naively , that some absolute entity called Guna, 
whicli is quite different from Alahkara etc. defines Riti in 
Dandin and that other writers and their definitions of Ritis in 
other w crds and other ways differ wholly from Dandin’s. 

The Agni Purana borrows its definitions of the Ritis 
from Bhoja, (chapter XVII, on Anubhavas, in the S'r. Pra.), 
where Bhoja himself borrows from Rajas'ekhara. Later than 
these, Balmrupa Mis'ra, in his commentary on the Das'arupaka, 
(Mad. MS.) reproduces these definitions of the Ritis with the 
mention of Blioja’s name. The Kavya Mimamsa says : 

1. — srqiT 

•?rT I (p. S.) 

2 . — ^ 

^TT ftT%; I (p. 9.) 

3. — qci; — ^ 

?fT 1^4! ftra: 1 (p. 9.) 

^ See his Sanskrit Introduction to his edition of Udbhata’s 
K.A.S.S. with Tilaka’s commentary in the Gaek. series (p. 19). 



To these three, Bhoja adds the fourth Latlya which the 
Purana takes. In the above definitions of the three Ritis, 
three factors count — Samasa, Anuprasa and Yaugika or 
Aupacarikaprayoga. Of these, Samasa (of Rudrata’s Ritis) 
is the Guna of Ojas ; Anuprasa (of the Vrttis which are finally 
identified with the three Ritis) is one of the two kinds of 


of Dandin ; and Upacara mentioned by Rajas'ekhara 
is Dandin’s Samadhi, metaphorical expression, personification 
etc. There is however no trace of Yoga Vrtti as a part of the 
laksana of Riti in Dandin. Dandin has also said that Vaidarbhl 
has a kind of Anuprasa, has something like for it 

is a discriminate employer of such varieties as and 

that it is GaudI which loves Anuprasa as such and Samasa as 
such. The Vaidarbhl of Dandin also has little or no com- 
pound. This Bhoja follows in the Anubhava-chapter in his 
S'r. Pra. (chapter XVII) and the Agni Purana borrows from 
him when it says that 

1. Pancali is ^nd 

2. Gaudiya is and 

3. Vaidarbhl is srgfiT; or 

and and 

4. Latlya is and 

(S'ls. 2 Ay 

^ In the definition of the Latlya, the following line is 
printed wrongly : I 

It must be thus corrected : I 

and it means that the Latiya does not have too much of meta- 
phorical expression. 



Bhoja’s definitions are as follows : 

1. 3q=^?if%JT^, 

qT3[TgRT^fqra, q=q; ^?t i 

2. 3Tf%i5(^^HqT?T, ^r^3q=qT?lf%it^i:, 

^Ti^T%q?^qniT^ m i 

3. , 3i3q=qRif%*i^i, , f«n- 

^TgqwqiRI, m 1^ I 

4. ?tT^5q=qRqi?, 

jqTgqTRq^ffi, q=q:, m ^stqi i 

S'r, Pra. Mad. MS., chapter XVII, vol. Ill, pp. 212-6. 

The word Vigraha in the Agni Parana stands for Samasa ; 
for, it is for a Samasta word that we give Vigraha. 

Thus the characteristics which are given in the definitions 
of RTtis in Rajas'ekhara, Bhoja and the Agni Parana are not 
wholly unrelated to Gunas and these Gunas themselves are 
not certain absolute entities standing apart. The Upacara is 
Dandin’s Samadhi and the feature of Vigraha or Samasa 
comes under Dandin’s Ojas. Therefore it cannot be held that 
‘‘ the Ritis in the Purana have not been distinguished from 
one another by the presence or absence of certain poetic 
excellences (Gunas).” ^ 

See also my S'rngara Prakas'a, vol. I, pt. I, pp. 198-9. 


A Survey of the concept of \>tti in the realm of Natya 
where it originated was made by me in an article entitled the 
Vrttis in the J. O. R, Madras, vols. VI and VII. But like many 
other concepts, the Vrtti passed into Kavya also, experiencing 
many vicissitudes which form the subject of this chapter. If 
the concept is studied in relation to Kavya, /.c., S'rav}’a Kavya, 
in Alahkara S'astra, this is what we must logically expect : 
The whole field of S'ravya Kavya is Bharati Vrtti. Descrip- 
tions of lov^e, evening, moonlight, seasons etc., must be Kaisaki 
and of war etc., ArabhatL Sattvatl, if we accept it as the name 
of action, is as absent from Kavya as Bharat! is present. 
Bharati or the text of the whole Kavya will be modified, 
according to the situation, by Kais'ikI and Arabhatl, producing 
two main varieties of Bharati going by the names Vaidarbhl 
Ritl and Gaudiya Riti. The concept of Guna must here be. 
related to these. The two and the only two Gunas necessarv" 
here for classification are Madhurya and Ojas, characterising 
the two extremes of SYiigara and Raudra. The Madhurxai 
Guna, the Kais'ikI Vrtti and the Vaidarbhl Riti will go to- 
gether on the one hand as distinguishing certain Rasas, Iti- 
vrttas and verbal expressions, and similarly the Ojas*Guna, 
the Arabhatl Vrtti and the Gaud! Riti will go together as 
characteristics of a different set of poetic conditions. Guna 
will be the nature of the Rasa ; Vrtti, the nature of Vastu 
or ideas or Itivrtta ; and Riti, the nature of the expression of 



the first and the second in suitable words. This, in brief, 
must be the simple and strictly logical position of Vrtti in 
Kavya. But, in actual history, its career is not found to be so 

In poetics we have many concepts having the name Vrtti. 
The only one Vrtti with which we have nothing to do here is 
the the significatory capacities of words. The other 

concepts called Vrtti are three, viz.y (1) varieties of alliteration, 
(2) varieties of compounded collocation, 
and (3) the old Vrttis, KaisakI etc. of Natya. 

Bhamaha, in K. A. II. S'ls. 5-8, speaks of three kinds of 
Anuprasa. He first gives Anuprasa as the repetition of the 
same or similar' sound — and illustrates it by an 
alliteration with the sounds repeated. (S'L 5.) In S'l. 6, 
he gives another variety of Anuprasa as being held by others. 
It is called and is illustrated by the liquid allitera- 
tions of In S'l. 8, Bhamaha says that still some others 

speak of another variety of Anuprasa called which 

is illustrated by a repetition of syllables. Thus it is clear that 
Bhamaha mentions at least three kinds of Anuprasa, the first 
nameless, the second and the third When 

this is so, we are not able to understand how, to point out the 
addition made b}' Udbhata, both his commentators say that 
Bhamaha recognised only two kinds of Anuprasa. 

I Pratiharenduraja. 

ik ^ i Tilaka. 

Udbhata gives three kinds of Anuprasa (I-l and 3-20), viz., 
i.e, ftqgciw and 55ISI3qT?T. Of these the 


last is the same as mentioned by Bhamaha ; the first is new and 
as regards the second, it is partially available in Bhamaha. 
The second is given as having three varieties in the K. A. S. S., 
the varieties being called Vrttis by Udbhata, from which 
this second Anuprasa is named later as Vrttyanuprasa. He 
names the varieties or Vrttis as Parusa, Upanagarika and 
Gramya. The last is the same as the Gramyanuprasa in 
Bhamaha and is illustrated by a similar verse of ^ ^ — allitera- 
tion’. The Upanagarika is illustrated by an alliteration with 
the soft and nasal sound combinations like This is perhaps 
the same as the first variety cf Bhamaha. The Parusa 
is newly mentioned by Udbhata as a case of Anuprasa with 
S'a, sa, repha, ta etc., i,e,, harsh sounds. Now, the appropriate 
manipulation of alliterating sounds helps Rasa certainly. The 
repetition of harsh sounds and the Parusa Vrtti produced by 
their Anuprasa, help Vira, Raudra and Bibhatsa Rasas. The 
Upanagarika, using conjunct consonants with nasals and the 
Gramya also to some extent, help S'riigara. Therefore 
Pratiharenduraja explains Vrtti as the use of such sounds as 
suit and suggest Rasa. 

The first Vrtti is so called because of its harshness, the 
second because of its being refined like the city-bred dam- 
sel and the third, because it is all soft like an unsophisticated 
country-bred damsel. The third Vrtti, Gramya, is also called 
Komala, signifying the other extreme of the first, viz,, Purusa. 

Anandavardhana is very well acquainted with these Vrttis 
of Udbhata. He considers them to be the result of the Gunas, 
Madhurya etc. in the collocation. (I, pp. 5-6.) In Uddyota 



three he again mentions the Vrttis, Upanagarika etc. as being 
such use of words as will promote the realisation of Rasa. 
He takes the Vrtti in a -double sense, in the sense of the Vrttis 
of Natya, Kais'ikI etc. which are to be considered in Kavya 
also and in the sense of Upanagarika etc. The former he 
describes as ideas suitable or appropriate to Rasa and the latter 
as words suitable to Rasa (Vide Dhva. A. Ill, p. 182). 

li III. 33. 

%ra^^T?IT I 

I i^?it Tf ^iRfq 

Later also Anandavardhana makes the same distinction 
and mentions the two \a;ttis together. 

n iii. 48. 

£fWlT: ^>?JTTJT%T^T: 51 o3;^t£|T«15!IT 2IT«IT^^t^- 

cIT: 1 

Thus Anandavardhana states more clearly that in Kavyas 
there are two Vrttis, the Kaisdkl etc. being the same as in 
Natya and the Upanagarika etc. which latter, from being 
varieties of Anuprasa in Udbhata, became 
and thence in Anandavardhana became more generally 5[^Trg- 



Abhinavagupta also takes Vrttis as not different essentially 
from Gunas. He mentions them as they are given by Udbhata^ 
i,c,, as Anuprasa varieties : 

|c3^T: I 

+ -h + q^^qw:, q^qi I m- 

oiTgqW: sq^qf^qjl, JTTHRqjqT %Jq2fT fcqi I 

q^qq ^q^Eq'mfq^qq: i m qq l^^^qfqilq^qjqifqi^q^'q- 
qRqqfqqiqiq^qTfqq fi%qT*qra q ^q^tq; ^q^sTgqiq ffq t^- 

qTS5qiq^Tqq qq l Locana, pp. 5-6, N.S. edn. 

He calls the Parusa, Dipta ; the Upanagarika, Masrna or 
Lalita and the Gramya, Madhyama and Komala. Leaving 
aside the metaphors in the names, one ean see that the Parusa 
suits VIra, Raudra and Bibhatsa Rasas and can go with the 
Arabhati Vrtti ; the Upanagarika and Komala suit S'rhgara 
and Hasya and can go with the Kais'ikI Vrtti. Abhinavagupta 
says in a later context : 

qiqft^qT €{q?qq (|qfqqi) srgqfqffg; ^an- 
»qfq I 1 ^tq^fq 1 qqi — ‘ %m: 

qjFqqii^T: ’ ffq sfqqT qq ^qtfqq qq %sTfq^^ ff%: 1 

p. 232, III. Locana, N. S. Edn. 

Thus Abhinavagupta considers both the Vrttis as Rasa- 
ucita-vyavahara, the one, KaisakI etc., of Artha or ideas and 
the other, Upanagarika etc., of S'abda, words or letters. 
Therefore in Kavya we will not have a classification of 


and among Kais'ikyadivrttis themselves- Bharat! will 

not be a It also becomes an Artha Vyavahara or 

Artha \ rtti. All the four are Artha Vrttis and as distin- 
guished from them, the S'abda Vrttis are the three, Upana- 
garika etc. 

If S'abda and Artha are thus distributed between Upanaga- 
rika etc. on the one hand and Kais'ikI etc. on the other,, 
what shall Riti stand for ? Anandavardhana does separately 
mention Kiti along with the Vrttis Upanagarika etc. in both 
the contexts noted above, in Uddyotas one and three. In 
Uddyota one, he, as interpreted by Abhinavagupta (Vide pp. 
5-6), holds Ritis also as dependent on Gunas like the Vrttis, 
Upanagarika etc. Rut strictly speaking there is no room for 
Riti in either Anandavardhana’s scheme or Abhinavagupta’s. 
For, Riti can be — such use of words as are 

appropriate to Rasa but that place has been given to the Vrttis, 
Upanagarika etc. which have come to. mean not exactly 
\arieties of Anuprasa but use of words suitable to Rasa.. 
Therefore it is no wonder that we soon see in Mammata 
the equation of the three Ritis, Vaidarbhl, Gaud! and Pancal! 
with the three Vrttis Upanagarika, Parusa and Komala. 
Mammata says that Anuprasa is firstly of two kinds, Cheka 
and Vrtti Anuprasa and that the latter is the arrangement of 
letters suitable to Rasa. 

sqiqT?: I K. ]^ra. IX. 

This Vrtti is of three kinds, Upanagarika which is the 
use of letters suggestive of Madhurya, Parusa which is the dis- 
position of letters suggestive of Ojas, and Komala which is the 
use of other letters. Finally Mammata sa 3 ’s that it is these 
three Vrttis that are respectively called the Vaidarbhl Riti, 
the Gaudtya Riti and the PancMi Riti according to some. 



31^3r;q^T5I%F|^ q^qj — ^*1551 q^: !! 

q^^fqg^T JI^T: I IX. 3-4. 

l^qt iiH q^iff iiklqT qi^i^qp^T 

3=Eq;^ 1 K. Pra. IX.’ 

l^qp^qn J^qq: l Manikyacandra. 

Hemacandra quotes and completely follows Mammata. 
K. A. p. 204. He however does not treat of these three Vrttis, 
which are the same as the three Ritis, in the S'abdalahkara 
section, but, with a slight improvement treats of them in 
the Guna section. Therefore he does not consider these three 
Vittis as Anuprasa Jatis but merely as three kinds of Varna 

Jagannatha goes even a step further. After ekiborately 
examining the letters suggestive of or suitable to the various 
Rasas, he describes the Racana suggestive of Madhurya. Here 
he actually makes Vrtti another name for RIti and speaks of 
‘ Vaidarbhi Vrtti 

n^fqfq^qfqqq; ^nqi^q^fq =q qq^ i 
qifqqRq^5^i^q.q^fq?qT^iT ii 
fqqigqT RRi^qi i 

qi fqgqT 1^1 qq^q g^qRqiq^Tg ii 

3i^T«i fqq?[Tqq1|qq q^qq. i 

R. G. p. 73. 

^ See above ch. on Riti, pp. 146-7. 



In the history of this Vrtti in Poetics, Bhoja occupies a 
noteworthy place. For he says that some have given this 
Vrtti as of twelve kincls though mainly they are of three 
kinds, distinguished by three Gunas, viz,, 
and Bhoja does not call these by the old names 

Upanagarika etc. He applies those names to varieties of 
S'rutyanuprasa, (Vide p. 196. S. K. A. II). He gives new 
varieties of this Vrtti- Anuprasa of old. 



^?^T q^T 11 

f1% fH5iT i 

q:qTet 11 

S. K. A. II. S'ls. 84-86.. 


We see here that, though Bhoja does not use here the 
names Upanagarika, Nagarika and Gramya, he uses still the 
names Lalita, Parusa and Komala and to these three adds 
nine more. After illustrating these he refutes them all. He 
opines that such \h’ttis are unnecessary since they are not 
separate from either the Gunas or the Vrttis, Kais'ikI etc. 

^IT I 

jf ^ n 

S. K. A. II. 87- 

: I Ratnes’vara. 



Having cast away this Vrtti the old Anuprasa Jatis 
increased into twelve), Bhoja holds another set of twelve 
Anuprasa Jatis as being called Vrtti or Vrtty anuprasa. They 
are named on a geographical basis. They are not heard of 
elsewhere and have little reality or propriety as regards their 
names. The names of these twelve Vrttis are 


and ^CT^. We don’t know why Bhoja satisfied 
himself with twelve provinces, while, ancient India is 
traditionally described as having comprised fifty-six provinces. 

Fortunately these Vrttis disappear in later literature. 
Even the old Vrttis Upanagarika etc. pass into obscurity and 
Hemacandra is perhaps the last to mention them. Later 
writers completely forget the names Upanagarika etc. as Vrttis 
standing for such use of words as are suggestive of Rasa. 
They keep the concept of the four ancient Vrttis derived from 
Natya, KaisakT etc. and hold them, as Anandavardhana did, as 
the name of the development or delineation of such ideas, Artha, 
as are in consonance with Rasa. They are held as 

Side by side with them are held the Ritis for 
Certain writers are satisfied with four Vrttis 
and four Ritis, while others increase their number. Bhoja has 
raised the number of both to six and has held both as two 
S'abdalaiikaras. He adds and to the 

four old Vrttis of Artha Sandarbha and Avantika and MagadhT 
to the four Ritis, Vaidarbhl, GaudT, Pancall and Latiya. 
(Vide S. K. A. H, pp. 133-139.) Among the six ViTtis, it 
happens as we expect that Bharati and Sattvati have not got 
the meaning they have in Natya. They are respectively put 
between the softness and sweetness of the Kais'iki and the 
force and blaze of the Arabhatl. Bharati is Komala and 
Praudha and Sattvati is the same with more Praudhi. In 



Vidyanatha we find that Bharatl leans to Kais'iki as 
and Sattvatl to the Arabhatl as Vidyanatha also 

assigns these four to the Rasas thus : S'riigara and Karuna 
— Kais'ikl ; Raudra and Bibhatsa — Arabhatl ; Hasya, S'anta 
and Adbhuta — Bharatl and VTra and Bhayanaka — Sattvatl. 
Vidyanatha accepts Bhoja’s two additional Vrttis also and 
considers them as the Vrttis of all Rasas. (Vide pp. 43-45. 
Prat. Yas'. Bhus. Balamanorama cdn.). 

The Kais'ikI Vrtti goes with the V'aidarbhl Riti ; the 
Arabhatl with the GaudI , the former pair is characterised by 
sweetness and delicacy while the latter, b}^ force and energy. 
Murari thus couples the Kais'iki Vrtti and the Vaidarbhi Riti : 

II A. R. VII, 101. 

Coming to the last concept of Vrtti in poetics, viz., Vrtti 
as meaning varieties of compounded collocation — this appears 
in Bana and Rudrata. Bana mentions the Padavrtti in which 
the Padas are uncompoundcd, Asamasta. 

I P- 250, the Kadambarl, N. S. cdn. Rudrata says — 

^ II etc. K. A. II, 3-6. 

Collocation of words are of two kinds or \4;ttis, uncom- 
pounded and compounded, ira*. and lRl^ 

The former is of only one kind and is called the Vaidarbhi Riti. 

1 ii. 0. 

* Such change in their import could not be avoided ; for these 
two cannot come into Kavya with as much ease and propriety as 
Kais5ki and Arabhati. 



The fra: or the collocation with compounds is 

of three kinds. If the compounds are as long as possible, 
then it is called the Gaudiya Riti. If there are compounds 
only of two or three words, the resulting Riti is Pancall which 
comes nearest to the VaidarbhT. When the compounds are 
of five or seven words, the Riti resulting from them is Latlya. 
We hear of the study of compounded or uncompounded 
collocation as suggestive of Rasa under various circumstances, 
under the name Sarhghatana in the third Uddyota of Dhv. A. 
But there we do not hear of the varieties compounded or 
uncompounded collocationas being called Vrtti or as directly 
producing the four Ritis. Above, in the preceding section,, 
we saw how^ a concept of Vrtti, developing from Anuprasa, 
soon called itself Riti. Here we are given a relation of the 
Ritis to the fact of a collocation having compound words or 
uncompounded words. This fact lights up the history of 
the Riti before Dandin and Bhamaha. As we find it in 
Dandin, we see that Anuprasa, Samasa, Madhur 3 ^a, Parusya, 
Komalya or some Gunas corresponding to these two last 
Gunas enter into the differentia of the Ritis. 

Rudrata knew^ also the Vrttis w hich are Anuprasa Jatis, 
He gives, not three, but five kinds of them. 

m I 

fOlTJTt || II. 19. 

Namisadhu, while commenting on this, mentions one 
Hari as having held these Vrttis to be eight in number. 


The three Vrttis added by Hari are and 

and perhaps from Rudrata and Hari it is that Bhoja 
makes a set of twelve Vrttis which we noted above. Who 
this Hari is, is not known. He does not seem to be an 
Alahkarika. This verse is from a Prakrt poem of Hari in the 
introductory portion of which, as many other writers do, Hari 
speaks of some topics of Alahkara. These Vrttis, Rudrata 
says, as Anandavardhana also later says, are to be used, not 
with a vengeance but with discrimination, taken and often 
cast away with an eye on the Aucitya of Rasa. 

Rudrata, K. A. II, 32* 

Thus the four Vrttis of Natya live in Kavya as 
and as such stand in close relation to the Gunas. They 
are on a par with Ritis which are or in an 

earlier stage, with what has been characterised as S'abda Vrtti, 
Upanagarika etc. Of the four Vrttis, the KaisikI and Arabhati 
have had the least or no change at all in Kavya. As can be ex* 
pected, Bharat! and Sattvati, when they came into Kavya had to 
cast off their old meanings of Speech and Action of subtle Bhavas 
of the mind. Even the S'abda Vrtti, Bharati, became an Artha 
Vrtti leaning towards the Kais'iki as having less Saukumarya. 
^attvatl, as having less Praudhi, was made to mean a weak 
variety of Arabhati. 



One of the noteworthy points in the Sanskrit systems of 
literary criticism is that, in an inquiry into a comprehensive 
philosophy of the literary art, they do not separate poetry 
and drama, nor prose and verse. Bharata, in his Natya 
S'astra, has defined Drama as Imitation of the three worlds 
or representation of the actions of men of various nature : 

or (n. s', i, io 7 , iis. 120 etc. 

Vide also Das'arupaka I, 7 ). Consequently Bharata has per- 
fected a system of ideas of ‘ Loka Dharmi which term means 
‘the ways of the world’ or to put it short ‘Nature’, and 
stands to denote the realistic elements in Bharata’s Stage.* 
In the concept of Prakrti, Bharata studies the various kinds 
of men, minds, and natures found in the worlds. In the 
concept of Pravrtti he has studied the provincial, racial, and 
national characteristics in dressing and other activities. He 
has elaborately dealt with Aharya-abhinaya, dress and 
make-up, which, he says, must be appropriate to the Rasa 
and Bhava. 

II n. s', xxiii, 42. 

* See my article on Loka Dharmi (Realism) and Natya Dharmi 
(Conventions and Idealism) of Bharata’s Stage in the J OR, Madras, 

Vol. VIL 


He has devoted separate sections to a consideration of the 
most proper way of correct speaking in the drama according to 
the emotions (XIX, of the Svaras suitable for each 

mood and of the musical tunes, Jatyams'akas, appropriate to 
the varying Rasa and Bhava (XXIX, 1-4). These remarks 
apply to the artists of the stage and theatre, the actors, the 
conductor and others. Regarding the work of the poet- 
dramatist, Bharata has analysed the text of the drama and has 
pointed out how the verbal qualities of sweetness, harshness 
etc., and the flights of fancies expressed in the form of figures 
of speech have to be appropriate to that Bhava or Rasa which 
is portrayed (XVII, 108-123). Thus at the end of the treatment 
of eacli topic, Bharata has an important section called 
^ Rasa-prayoga where he points out what suits what. 

So much so that Bharata. observes that, in judging drarna, 
the ground of reference for success of the art is the world. He 
emphasises that one has to know the infinite variety of 
human nature — Prakrti and S'lla, on which is Natya or drama 
based. . . 

The ‘ Pramana’ of Natya is finally only the world. A theorist 
can give a few indications and the rest can be learnt only 
from the world. 


• ■ • ■ • 



SI 5m H ^ I 

5nioT ^ >Tiq%5Tf^ ^fh II 
siFIRft^ST: Rfm; 5ft% siTI^j I 

cRSTT#^: Rsnoi f| STT^I^f^: II 

N. S'., XXVI, 113-119. 

»I«TT snf^ ^JIMlf^ I 

N. S'., XXIV, 214. 

(end of the chapter on dress and make-up). Nature or the 
three worlds or Prakrti or S'lla — all these can finally be re- 
ferred to by the single word Rasa which is the ‘ Soul ’ of 
poetry. Drama is the representation of moods, Bhava-anu- 
klrtana, as Bharata puts it. Out of these moods flow every- 
thing — the actions, the character, the dress, the nature of one’s 
speech etc. Thus to this factor, which is at the root of all 
these things, viz,, Rasa, have these things again to be referred 
for finding out whether in representing them, there is propriety 
or appropriateness. Things cannot be estimated by themselves 
separately and labelled as good or bad, appealing or otherwise. 
That is, Gunatva and Dosatva do not inherently pertain to 
anything eternally but anything, according to the situation 
where it occurs, is either suitable or not ; and in this suitability 
or otherwise lies Gunatva or Dosatva. What Bharata says of 
ornaments and decoration in the make-up of the characters is 
true of all other parts of the art of representation by the poet 
and the production of the drama on the stage by the actors. 
Bharata lays down that if a thing does not agree or is not 
proper in a certain place with reference to Rasa, it is the 
, greatest literary flaw. Improper placing, like placing a neck- 
lace at the foot and an anklet round the neck, can only produce 


^ 51 I 

5n% ^ 11 N. S'., XXIII, 69. 

It is a serious breach of propriety for a writer to describe 
a forlorn lady suffering from separation from her lord (i.e,, one 
in Pravasa Vipralambha) as having her body fully decked with 
jewels. In the realm of artistic expression the same rule 
holds good. A poet commits the greatest crime against Rasa 
if he introduces a cartload of ornaments of a verbal character 
in places where Rasa has to be effectively portrayed and where 
the absence of any figure is itself the perfection of art. The 
proper placing of things in such a manner as to suit Rasa and 
the avoiding of things not suitable form the essence of artistic 
expression. This is propriety, Aucitya. An anklet adds no 
beauty as an ornament but an anklet as an ornament for the 
ankle is helpful to beautify one. We can thus see how this 
doctrine of appropriateness, propriety and adaptation — all com- 
prehended in the one word Aucitya, is directly derivable from 
Bharata. Just put by the side of the verse of Bharata above- 
quoted, the verse illustrative of the theory of Aucitya given 
by Ksemendra in his Aucityavicaracarca, in which work the 
doctrine of Aucitya had the complete elaboration into a system 
■of criticism, and see : 

31^^ ^ 5T 5^511 1 

^ ^ II Bharata, XXIII, 69. 


^ 5133^ gon: n 

Ksemendra’s Au. V.C. 


Thus the first work in the history of Sanskrit Poetics contains 
implicitly as n^uch of this theory of Aucitya of the Sanskrit 
Alahkara S'astra, as of the other theory of poetry, Rasa, ex- 
plicitly, even though emphasis on both these — Aucitya and 
Rasa — was again systematically laid only as late as the nintlu 
tenth and eleventh centuries. 

Aucitya is harmony and in one aspect it is proportion 
between the whole and the parts, between chief and the 
subsidiary, between the Ahgin and the Aiigas. This perfec- 
tion is all the morals and beauty in art. At the final stage of 
its formulation as a theory explaining the secret of poetic appeal,. 
Aucitya is stated to be the * Jivita life-breath, of poetry. 
This Aucitya, which is proportion and harmony on one side 
and appropriateness and adaptation on the other, cannot be 
understood by itself but presupposes that to which all other 
things are harmonious and appropriate. Surely there has to 
be harmony and appropriateness in every part and between one 
part and another ; but everything as a whole has to be pro- 
nounced proper and appropriate or otherwise by a reference to 
what constitutes the ‘ Soul ’ — Atman of poetry viz,, Rasa. 
Thus Bharata speaks of the Rasa-prayoga of Pravrtti, Vrtti, 
Guna, Alahkara, Aharyabhinaya, Pathyaguna, Svara and 
Jatyams^a. In later terminology, this Rasaprayoga is Rasa- 
aucitya. But Aucitya is only implicitly contained in Bharata. 
It was only rather late that Poetics got itself again wedded 
and identified with Bharata’s Dramaturgy and took its stand 
scientifically on the two pedestals of Rasa and Aucitya, which 
it had forgotten for a time, as we shall now see in the following 
account of the history of the concept of Aucitya after Bharata. 

The next glimpse we have of Aucitya is in Magha, who, 
, in his poem, has made some side-remarks which 


shoot their rays into the darkness of the early 


history of Poetics. In canto ii of Magha’s S'is'upalavadha, we 
have a verse on the policy best suited for the king, which, 
through comparison, drags in the topic of Gunas in Kavyas 
or dramas. 

II S'. V. II, 83. 

The king has to achieve his purpose with an eye on ex- 
pediency. Time and circumstance are the pre-eminently 
deciding factors of his policy. There is no inherent good in 
either power or forbearance and peace by themselves but all 
goodness of a policy consists in its effectiveness, in using that 
which is suited to the time. Prowess is waste and will even 
ruin the cause where it is needlessly flaunted. Forbearance 
cannot help the king when he has to succeed by putting up a 
thick fight. Thus, adaptation is the only policy good for the 
king. The case is similar to that of a poet with whom the 
main concern is Rasa and Bhava and an understanding of 
their subtle nature. In portraying his characters and their 
actions and in describing them, it will not do if the poet sticks 
to one quality throughout, say Prasada or Ojas. When the 
Vira, Adbhuta and Raudra Rasas appear, he has to. adopt the 
Guna Ojas to suit the vigour, energy and blaze (Dipti) of 
those Rasas and when the key of emotion is lowered and 
quiet emotinal effects have to be produced, the requisite quality 
for the poet is Prasada. Thus, not Gunas by themselves,"^ 
but that Guna which is proper and appropriate — Ucita — is 
helpful to Rasa. This is Guna-aucitya. Aucitya is here 
Adaptation. Magha, as a poet, had this clear insight into 
Bharata’s ideas of Rasa and Gunas appropriate to each Rasa. 
Bhoja considers such appropriateness in expression between 
the emotion and the stylistic quality as a Prabandha-guna, 



i.e., one of the good features of good poetry. He calls it 
‘ He means the same thing as what Magha 

says in the above-given verse, which also Bhoja quotes. 

<Magha, S'. V. II, 83.) | S'rhgara Prakas'a, 

Madras MS. Vol. II, p. 432. 

In the above-given verse of Magha we have an early * S'iro- 
daya ’ of the doctrine of Gunas as the Dharmas of Rasa, the 
Soul of Kavya, which is one of the special contributions of 
Anandavardhana. In later terminology, Magha is here speaking 
of appropriateness of letters and collocation, 

or simply 

It is again in respect of Gunas that we have a faint 
Bhamaha glimpse of the idea of Aucitya implied in certain 
and Da^idin parts of the treatises of Bhamaha and Dandin. 
Magha says that Gunas must change and be appropriate to 
the Rasa and the Bhava of the situation. Ojas or Prasada 
wrongly placed is a literary flaw, directly hindering Rasa. 
Thus the breach of Aucitya gives rise to flaws. In one way, 
the greatest Guna or excellence of poetry is only Aucitya 
and it comprehends all other Gunas ; and the greatest Dosa 
or flaw comprehending other flaws is Anaucitya.' Thus when 

(а) Sarves'vara, in his Sahityasara, (p. 20, Madras MS.) gives 
seven Vakyartha dosas, and among these Aucitya bhahga is con- 
sidered as the first. 

(б) Cf. also Municandra’s commentary on Dharmabindu 
(Agamodaya Samiti series, p. 11a): 

goirirf i 

gopim: ii 


the Riti is not suited to the Rasa, we can say that there is 
Riti-anaucitya and a Dosa called Arltimat. But the Gaud! Riti 
which may not suit S'rhgara cannot be condemned altogether as 
eternally unsuited to all poetry. The Gaudi Riti can effectively 
suggest Vira, Adbhuta, and Raudra Rasas and in the cases of 
these three, the Vaidarbhi suited to S'rhgara may be ‘ anucita 
There may be harsh sounds and heavy, long and swollen utter- 
ances in a highly worked-up emotion of the kind of Raudra ; the 
harsh sounds which suggest the Rasa in this case must be 
avoided by the poet in S'rhgara Rasa which is suggested by 
sweet assonances and delicate sound effects. Therefore it is 
that the Dosas, given as such in separate sections by Bhama- 
ha and Dandin, are, to use a word which came into currency 
only after Anandravardhana, Anitya. That is, in certain cir- 
cumstances Dosas cease to be so ; there are no fixed Gunas or 
Dosas ; what is Guna in one case is Dosa in another and 
vice versa. 

In chapter I, Bhamaha deals with certain Dosas in the 
last section beginning with s'l. 37. After defining and illus- 
trating them he says that these flaws cease to be so sometimes 
and really give beauty to expression. 


• ■ • ■ • 

« ■ ■ ■ ■ 


The principle behind these observ^ations is Aucitya, adap- 
tation. Again, in chapter IV, Bhamaha speaks of such flaws 
in poetry as Lokavirodha. The flaw of Lokavirodha, which 
is going against nature, is nothing but the non-observance of 
the Aucitya of Prakrti etc. Here, he also points out that re- 
dundance, Punarukti, which is generally a flaw in expression, 
turns out to be an effective way of expression in fear, sorrow, 
jealousy, joy and wonder. 

II IV, 14. 

There is also the saying ‘ I ’ 

It is in the same section on Dosas that the principle of 
Aucitya is implied in Dandin’s work also. Dandin treats of 
Dosas in the fourth chapter of his work. Each and every 
Dosa is given with a qualification that in certain circum- 
stances it ceases to be Dosa and turns out to be a Guna. 
Thus Apartha, the first flaw, is generally a Dosa but it is the 
most proper means of successfully portraying a madman’s 
raving, a child’s sweet prattle or the speech of a sick man. 

II IV. 5. 

Speaking of the flaw of Viruddhartha or Vyartha, Dandin 
says that there is such a state of mind also in which even 
contradictory speech is the natural mode of expression and 
hence, in those places, the flaw becomes an excellence. 


5^T li ly. 10. 

Punarukta, as has been^ pointed out by Bhamaha also, is no 
flaw but is an effective way of expressing compassion or any 
stress of emotion which needs repetition. Sams'aya or the use 
of doubtful or ambiguous words may generally be a flaw but 
when such words are wilfully used, as is often needed in the 
world, the}^ are perfect Gunas. Thus Dandin shows excep- 
tions — Vyabhicara — to all the Dosas. He is fully aware, that 
in the realm of poetry, a certain thing is not Dosa by its very 
nature but that it is so because of circumstance, a change of 
which makes it a Guna. He thus finally concludes : 

11 l\. 5 - 7 . 

Bhoja developed the same idea by constituting under the 
head ‘ Guna ’ a peculiar class of Gunas called the Vais'esika 
Gunas. These are the flaws above noticed which Bhamaha 
and Dandin considered as excellences sometimes. (Vide the 
Sarasvatikanthabharana, chapter I. S'ls. 89-156, pp. 78-119).* 
Bhoja calls them also Dosagunas. As a matter of fact, all 
Gunas and Dosas are ‘ Vais'esika ‘ It all depends \ says 
the discerning critic in literature as one says in this complex, 
world. The fact of Dosas becoming Gunas recorded by 
Bhamaha and Dandin means, if it means or implies anything, 
the doctrine of Aucitya as the only ruling principle holding 
good in the realm of poetry for ever. It is because of this 
that, in Poetics, Dosas are called Anitya. It is only a clearer 

* I have spoken of these at length in the chapter on the History 
of GuiQLas in my book on the S'rhgara Prakas^a. 



Statement of what Dandin has said in the Dosa-section that 
we have in Anandavardhana and Abhinavagupta, who say ; 

^ 3Tf^T ^ ^ I 

52 ^ ^ ^ 11 

Dhva. A. II, 12. 

»nq: i Locana. 

The principle by virtue of which ‘ harsh sounds ’ — S'ruti- 
dusta — which form a Dosa to be avoided in S'rhgara become 
themselves a Guna highly suggestive of Raudra etc., is Adapta- 
tion or Aucitya. (Vide also Dhva. A. Ill, 3-4). 

In the first half of the 8th century, King Yas'ovarman 

of Kanauj, patron of Bhavabhuti, wrote his 

author ' of "tTe drama Ramabhyudaya, whose prologue has 

drama Rama- gome interest to the student of the history of 

Poetics for a verse in it on certain concepts 
connected with theoretical literary criticism. That veritable 
mine of quotations, the stupendous S'rngara Prakas'a of king 
Bhoja, quotes that verse. Bhoja considers a number of 
Alankaras of Prabandha, i.e., good features of a poem or a 
drama as a whole. One of these Prabandhalafikaras is given by 
him as ‘ excellence of build ’ — — which means, 
.according to him, that the minor ‘ descriptions ’ in a Maha- 
kavya must be so set in the framework of the story that they 
do not appear irrelevant or overdone. This is Aucitya in 
its aspect of proportion, harmony and strict artistic relevancy 
of all details from the point of view of Rasa. Bhoja means 
that this applies to drama also as his quotation from Yas'o- 
varman shows. 


3^^^ sTfR^igiT^, ?!^5r 

sfg: im JT I 

£^f5«r 5I5a[T4^: 

11 ' 

S'r. Pra. Mad. MS. Vol. II, p. 411. 

This is the earliest instance so far known of the occurrence of 
the word Aucitya. Yas'ovarman here refers to a number of 
good features which a good drama should have. First among 
them are Aucitya of expression, f.e., speech written according 
to the nature and level or rank of the characters and Aucitya 

* That this is a verse in Yas'ovarman's Ramabhyudaya is 
known from the Locana on the Dhva. A. Ill, p. 148. Ananda- 
vardhana quotes from the second line of the above verse, the bit 
^ \ Explaining the phrase which introduces 

this quotation, Abhinavagupta says : ^ I I ^ 

There should be a full -stop in the text here and the words 

in the Locana do not form any quotation, as the N. S. 
edn. suggests by clubbing them together with and by 

giving them with quotation marks. The correct text should be 
I is a Pratika and refers to the word 

Sthiti in Anandavardhana’s Vrtti " 

etc. This word Sthiti is interpreted by Abhinavagupta as 
the course of the story 

That it is a verse from the prologue can easily be known ; for 
such verses can figure nowhere else. Mark the similarity of this 
verse to the verse * etc.’ in the prologue to the Mala- 

timadhava of Bhavabhuti who wrote in Yas^ovar man’s court. Also 
note in the III line the Guija mentioned by Yas'ovarman 
’ which Bhavabhuti also mentions. ‘ ^ 

This seems to have developed into the Praudhi forming the 
Arthaguna Ojas in Vamana, III. ii. 2. 



of Rasa, /.e., delineation of characters in their proper moods 
with an e^^e to developing the Rasa in the proper place. 
These to comprise the external and internal Aucitya or Aucitya 
of expression and Aucitya of the content, /.e., the Rasa. On 
this point Yasovarman has emphasised only what Bharata 
had laid down as regards Prakrti and Slila. The second 
mentioned Aucitya of Rasa, its appropriateness to the Patra, 
the character and its development in the proper place (^^- 

are elaborated into many rules of 
Rasaucitya by Rudrata and Anandavardhana as we shall see in 
a further section. 

It is this all-round Aucitya called by Bhoja an Alahkara 
and Sannives'apras'astyam that Lollata also emphasises. Lollata 
wants every part of the Mahakavya to be Rasavat. All these 
are various ways of putting the idea of the Aucitya of Rasa, the 
‘Soul’ of poetry, without basing oneself on which, none can 
talk of Aucitya intelligibly. 

In practice, as can be seen from the numerous and large 

Mahakavyas, which are entitled to that name 

Lollata . 

because of their bulk at least, all notions of pro- 
priety had become unknown to poets. The several limbs over- 
developed themselves separately, like elephantiac leg, and the 
Kavya as a whole was an outrage on harmony and Aucitya. This 
Lollata severely criticised, perhaps in his commentary on the 
Natya S'astra. To this aspect of Aucitya viz,, proportion and 
strict relevancy of every detail, Lollata drew attention. In 
the gap between Dandin and Rudrata, two or three stray 
verses of Lollata quoted by Rajas'ekhara, Hemacandra and 
Namisadhu give us a flash in the dark and we see how, stage 
by stage, the concept of propriety or Aucitya was developing. 
These three verses of Lollata emphasise Rasaucitya, Aucitya 
of parts to the chief element called Rasa i.e,, the aspect eallcd 


proportion. Ornaments hide beauty if they are not structural 
or organic ; similarly * descriptions ' have to logically emerge 
out of the story and the complex course of its Rasa as a 
necessity. Descriptive cantos should not stand out like out- 
houses and isolated places for the poet’s mind to indulge at 
length in excess. This is true of the drama as much as of the 
epic poem. In a drama, the sub-plots, the Pataka and the 
Prakari and the Sandhyahgas should not be considered by 
themselves as having any virtue but should be seen to be 
relevant to Rasa. This Anandavardhana emphasises, as we 
shall see. As regards the Mahakavya, Lollata' [Aparajiti, /.e., 
son of Aparajita’] says according to Rajas'ekhara : 

K. M. I, ix, p. 49. 

The second verse in the above quotation, along with its follow- 
ing verse, is quoted by Hemacandra with the mention of the 
name Lollata. The additional verse quoted by him criticises 
the poets for setting apart cantos for such feats as Yamaka, 
Cakrabandha etc., in a Alahakavya, they being very inapprop- 
riate and uttterly unhelpful to the emotional idea of the 
epic poem. 

* Vide my paper on Writers Quoted in the Abhinavabharati, 
Journal of Oriental Research, Madras, Vol. VI, Part II, p. 169. 



^ *RT: II 

^T II 1% II 

K. A. Ch. V, p. 215, 

Namisadhu, on Rudrata III. 59, quotes the additional verse 
quoted by Hemacandra and emphasises with its authority the 
principle of Aucitya. 

Thus proportion and harmony form an aspect of Aucitya 
which is propriety, adaptation, and other points of appro- 
priateness, From the point of view of the perfect agreement 
between the parts and the chief element of Rasa, from the 
point of view of this proportion and harmony, I think, Aucitya 
can be rendered in English into another word also viz,y 
‘ Sympathy ’, which as a word in art-criticism means ‘ mutual 
conformity of parts 

From Daijdin we had to come to Lollata before we 

could again catch sight of Aucitya as a prin- 

Rudrata . , , , . . 

ciple underlying many literary dicta. This 

means that we have to come almost to the time of Anan- 
davardhana whom Rudrata must have slightly preceded. 
Up to the time of Rudrata the concept was developing un- 
consciously without a name. The name Aucitya was not given 
to the idea by any writer of poetic theory, and one more 
useful word was not thus added to the critical vocabulary of 
the Sahrdaya, But the word Aucitya must have slowly 
dawned in the circles of Sahrdayas and we first see that word 
used in theoretical literature only in Rudrata's Kavyalankara, 
a work which has not yet left the primitive Alankara-stage 


of criticism but has however embodied into itself a good deal 
of the concept of Rasa, which alone, according to it, made 
poetry that interesting and charming thing it is — Sarasa. 
The word Aiicitya occufs often in Anandavardhana’s work 
and Rudrata is only the first writer to mention it in theoretical 
literature. For, earlier, in the first half of the eighth century. 
King Yas'ovarman of Kanauj uses the word Aucitya with 
much theoretical significance, in much the same significance 
as the word is used with in later times, in the prologue of 
his lost drama, Ramabhyudaya, as we have noticed above. 
Thus the three stages to be noticed in the appearance of the 
name Aucitya is its mention by Yas'ovarman, treatment of it 
to a small extent in Rudrata and to a large extent in Ananda- 
vardhana’s Dhvariyaloka. Rudrata just preceded Anandavar- 
dhana or was an early contemporary of his. He was perhaps 
writing in S'ankuka’s time. Some ideas given in the Dhva. A. 
arc already seen in Rudrata’s work. iMany of the Rasa dosas 
mentioned by Anandavardhana under Rasaucitya in Uddyota 
iii are found in Rudrata’s K. A. What we must note here at 
present is that though Rudrata treats t)f Alankaras so largely 
and though his work is yet one of the old period in which 
works are called Kavya-A/a/ii^am, he has realised the impor- 
tance of Rasa to suit which Alankaras exist. If Alankaras are 
otherwise, they have little meaning. That is what Anandavar- 
dhana develops in a section on Alankarasamiksa in Uddyota ii. 
The idea that Rasa and Rasaucitya control Alankara is already 
seen in Rudrata, who, as said above, is the first writer of 
Poetics to mention the word Aucitya. After dealing with some 
S'abdalankaras like Yamakas which are a siren to the easily 
tempted poets, Rudrata says, by way of closing the chapter, 
that these figures must be introduced after bestowing due 
•thought on propriety, Aucitya, with reference to the main 




theme. Even the Anuprasas have to be now cast away and 
now taken and must be sparsely used with much advantage. 
They must not be thickly overlaid upon the theme through 
the whole length of it. 

K. A. II, 32. 

This is Aucitya of Alahkara which Anandavardhana 
elaborates in Uddyota ii of his work. It is this idea in the 
last line of Rudrata’s verse quoted above — that 
Anandavardhana has formulated into the rule — ^ 

(II. 19) taking and throwing away according to the 
circumstances, as regards the use of figures. 

The word Aucitya again occurs at the end of the next 
chapter in Rudrata’s work where again Rudrata points out the 
danger of Yamaka etc. He says that they must be approached 
only by him who knows Aucitya. Namisadhu perfectly under- 
stands the full implication of Rudrata’s strictures on Yamaka 
etc., and quotes on this subject of Aucitya the verse of Lollata 
which we considered in a previous section. Rudrata says 

K. A. Ill, p. 36. 

rIsiT ^ I ^T^IT ^*1?^ ^ 

fi: I I 

I ‘ + JTf %Ti^- 

(Lollata) |1 ’ 


. . . 

. . . I ^ I 


Besides the mention of the word Aucitya and the presence 
of the idea of Alahkaraucitya in the two places above referred 
to, Rudrata speaks of the adaptation-aspect of Aucitya also 
implicitly like Dandin while dealing with Dosas, which, in 
certain cases, become Gunas. {Vide chap, vi, S'l. 8). Under 
the Dosa called Gramya, Rudrata speaks of propriety in ad- 
dressing persons of differing ranks which Bharata deals with 
at length as a part of Prakrtyaucitya. Explaining another 
variety of the Dosa called Gramya, viz,, the Asabhya in VI. 
21-24, Rudrata says that there are certain words which are 
inappropriate — Anucita — but which in certain special cases 
become very appropriate — Ucita. 

I ’ He again uses the idea of ‘ Ucitanucita ’ in the next 
variety of Gramya. He then points out like Dandin how 
all Dosas, Punarukta etc., become Gunas elsewhere. (VI, 
29-39). Finally, Rudrata says that almost all kinds of flaws 
become excellences when occasion needs the ‘ imitation ' — 
Anukarana — of those flaws. That is, the poet and the 
dramatist have to depict an infinite variety of men and nature 
in diverse and complex circumstances. When a madman has 
to be represented, his nonsense has to be ‘ imitated ’ and 
it is itself ‘ sense ’ for the artist here. This was pointed 
out also at the beginning of this paper while showing how 
Bharata’s N.S'. implies the adaptation aspect of Aucitya. 
Says Rudrata : 

^ ^ W V, 47. 


As an instance of all flaws becoming excellences, Namisadhu 
says that in describing a bad speaker committing mistakes of 
pronunciation, grammar etc., art makes Gunas of all those 
mistakes. Aucitya or adaptation transforms Dosas into 
Gunas. He cites an instance of the funny description of the 
illiterate husband of the poetess Vikatanitamba who is unable 
to pronounce properly. 

^ i 

^ f ^ q II i 

Following Rudrata, Bhoja says in the beginning of his 
treatment of those Dosas which become Gunas : 

% =^g^^Tf3[i I 

^S5r ^^on; II S. K. A. I, 89. 

This point is realised by the American critic J. E. 
Spingarn who writes as follows as if explaining the prin- 
ciple of Aucitya, by which Dosas become Gunas as a 
result of circumstances like ‘ imitation Mr, Spingarn says, 
in an essay on the Seven Arts and the Seven Confusions, 
that in poetry and drama Dosatva and Gunatva are 
not absolutely fixed abstractly and that they are always 
relative. He remarks : ' It is inconceivable that a modern 
thinker should still adhere to the abstract tests of good 
expression, when it is obvious that we can only tell whether 
it is good or bad when we see it in its natural context. Is 
any word artistically bad in itself ? Is not “ ain’t ” an ex- 
cellent expression when placed in the mouth of an illiterate 
character in a play or story ? ’ In Rudrafa’s words, Spingarn 


says that a Gramya word becomes most appropriate in a case 
of Anukarana — ‘ imitation Therefore in expression, in the 
world of thought, in the realm of action and feeling, and in the 
region of ideas, that which is proper in the context, that which 
is useful to the Rasa, and that which has mutual harmony 
with the other parts, is the best and most beautiful. 

In chapter XI, Rudrata again speaks of flaws of thought 
and emotion, Arthadosas and Rasadosas, where under 
‘ Gramya ’, he mentions Anaucitya or inappropriateness in 
doings, in port, in dress and in speech with reference to 
country, family, caste, culture, wealth, age and position. The 
need for the Aucitya in these is emphasised by Bharata, 
Rudrata says : 

11 XI, 9. 

All these Dosas are again shown to become Gunas in S'ls. 
18-23. We can illustrate this principle of Aucitya everywhere. 
Ordinarily Nyunopama or comparing to an inferior object and 
Adhikopama or comparing to a superior object are flaws of 
Upama or the figure of Simile but these two are the very secret 
of success when a poet wants to satirise a person. Nyunopama 
and Adhikopama are freely employed in comic and satiric 
writings where the}^ become very ‘ Ucita 

The idea of Aucitya and that word itself also explicitly 
occur often in the Dhvanyaloka, besides being 

Anandavardhana . , . - - 

implied in many places. As a matter of tact, 

Ksemendra, the systematic exponent of Aucitya as the * Life ’ 

of poetry, took his inspiration only from Anandavardhana. 

Anandavardhana has laid dow n that the ‘ Soul ’ of poetry is 

Rasa or Rasadhvani. 



mi 3^T I 

2at^: 11 I, 5. 

That Dhvani is the only artistic process by which Rasa, 
the ‘ Atman is portrayed by the poet and is got at by the 
Sahrdaya and that everywhere things appeal most by being 
deftly concealed and suggested by suppression in a fabric of 
symbology, are the reasons why Anandavardhana posits Dhvani 
as the ‘Atman’ of poetry. That really Rasa or Rasadhvani is 
the ‘ Atman he expressly admits even in the first Uddyota {vide 
p. 28). The most essential thing in Rasa is Aucitya. Tfiat 
Vastu or ideas and Alankara or the artistic expression couched 
in figure and style are only the outer garment of Rasa, that 
they are subordinate and serviceable only to Rasa, and that 
they have meaning only as such, is the way in which Ananda- 
vardhana speaks of the Aucitya of Vastu and Alankara 
to Rasa. Firstly, Alankara by itself has no virtue. It has 
to be relevant, helpful to develop Rasa and never an 
overgrowth hindering or making hideous the poem. The term 
Alankara itself has meaning only then. 

11 III, 6. 

The topic of Aucitya of Alankara giving the rules which 
alone secure the appropriate employing of Alankara is dealt 
with by Anandavardhana in Ud. II, S'ls. 15-20, pp. 85 93. He 
first takes up the S'abdalankaras and condemns the Yamakas 
written at a stretch in such tender situations like Vipralambha. 
The rationale of Anandavardhana’s principles is this : what- 
ever the poet writes must be suggestive of Rasa and every- 
thing has to be tested good or bad, relevant or irrelevant, 


beautiful or ugly, by applying this strict logic of their capacity 
to suggest or hinder Rasa. The main refrain of Anandavardhana 
here is that Alahkara should be structural, organically emerg- 
ing as the only way of expressing an emotion and it must 
never be a cold and deliberate effort at decoration, necessi- 
tating the forgetting of Rasa and the taking of a special 

II II, 17. 

On p. 88, in Karikas 19-20, he gives the poet five practical 
ways of using Alankara to advantage.^ On this section is 
based the section on Alankaraucitya in Ksemendra’s Au- 

Similarly Anandavardhana relates Guna to Rasa of which 
Guna is the ' Dharma ’ and points out Aucitya of Guna. The 
quality of Madhurya is inherent in S'rngara, Vipralambha and 
Karuna, whereas Raudra is attended by the quality of Dipti, 
by a blazing up of the hearts. Accordingly words and col- 
location used in the two different cases must be such as to 
agree with the mood and the atmosphere of the Guna and its 
Rasa or such as to suggest the Guna and the Rasa. Thus 
sweet sound effects, the soft letters with nasal conjunct con- 
sonants, suggest and promote the realisation of the more tender 
and sweeter emotional moods whereas liarsh combinations 
which jar in the above instances instil vigour and become very 
appropriate to or highly suggestive of the wild Rasa of Raudra. 
This proper use of letters is Varna-aucitya ; Anandavardhana 
will say that there is Varnadhvani in these instances ; and a 
third wdll call it Varnavakrata. Collocation suggestive of 

^ See above, chapter on Use and Abuse of Alankara. 



Rasa or appropriate to Rasa is a case of Dhvani from San- 
ghatana or Aucitya of Sanghatana. Both these instances of 
Aucitya of Varna and Sanghatana coming under Gunaucitya 
are treated of by Anandavardhana in Ud. III. 

^ || III, 2. 

Wherever there is suggestiveness of Rasa in the express- 
ion, be it the element of sound and letter, separate words, col- 
location, portions of the theme (Prakarana) or even the work 
as a whole, there we have the Aucitya of those elements to 
Rasa which is the main thing. This is the relation between 
Dhvani and Aucitya. This is the relation between Dhvani 
and Vakrata or Vakrokti, as Abhinavagupta points out in his 
commentary on chap. XV of the Natyas'astra.’ 

Anandavardhana says of Varnas : 

^ II 

51^ ^ ^ ^=5351: || III, 3-4. 

Sounds must be appropriate — Ucita — enough to suggest the 
Rasa. This is the Aucitya called Appropriateness, the test of 
this Aucitya being the harmony between the expressed sounds 
and the suggested Rasa, the power of the former, the vehicle 

* Vide my article on the Writers quoted in the Abhinava- 
bharati, Journal of Oriental Research, Madras, Vol. VI, Part III^ 
p. 221 ; also my note on Abhinavagupta, Kuntaka and Laksana 
in the Indian Culture, Vol. Ill, part. IV, p. 756. Abhinavagupta 
reconciles here Dhvani, Vakrata and general Vaicitrya. We can 
reconcile Aucitya also to these. 


and the means, in suggesting the latter, the end. The same 
sounds helpful, suggestive or appropriate in one case need 
not always be so. They are inappropriate to other cases 
where other suggestive means of expression are required. 
Similarly what is useless in one case becomes useful in 
another and this is the Aucitya called Adaptation. 

Then Anandavardhana speaks of another kind of Gunau- 
citya called the Sahghatanaucitya. 

ll HI, 6. 

Visayaucitya is dealt with in III, 7 and Rasaucitya regarding 
Sahghatana in III,' 9. This topic of Sahghatana as having its 
intelligibility in suggesting the qualities of Madhurya and 
Ojas which in turn bring in their emotions, Vipralambha and 
Raudra, and as being finally controlled by the Aucitya of 
Rasa, together with three other minor principles of Aucitya 
of Vakta, (the character), Vacya (the subject) and Visaya, 
(the nature or form of artistic expression like the classifi- 
cation into drama, epic poem, campu, prose etc.) — is the 
special contribution of Anandavardhana for which he thus 
takes credit : 

q ii m, p. i44. 

Visayaucitya is pointed out by Bharata himself. The 
dramatic form as such enforces certain conditions and prin- 
ciples of Aucitya on the poet. Anandavardhana says that in 
a drama, the supreme concern of the poet shall be only Rasa. 
He shall never think of Alahkara etc. In drama especially, 
long compounds should be avoided. 



^ ^ 

^5^ I 

Dhva. A., p. 139. 

All things impeding the quick realisation of Rasa must be 
avoided. According to Bharata, this additional Aucitya must 
be observed as regards drama in particular : the words used 
must be simple, well-known and easy to be understood, deli- 
cate and sweet to hear. Harsh words and grximmarisms like 
Yahglugantas, Cekrldita etc., in a drama are like anchorites 
with Kamandalus in a courtesan’s room. They are ‘ Anucita ’ 
in drama. 

^T5?T5f;^T ^ I 

N. S'. XXI, 131-2. (See also XVII, 121-3.) 

§Io^T ^ 1 


N. S'. XXVII, 46. 

The section on Prabandhadhvani deals with the very sub- 
stance of a poem or drama and here one has to see that every- 
thing observes the principles of Aucitya and justifies itself by 
suggesting, as best as it can, the Rasa. A story has to be 
built as the expression of a Rasa. If a story already available 
is handled, changes suitable to the Rasa must be made wher- 
ever the old story is not helpful to bring out the Rasa. If 
there are too many incidents, only those that are most 
expressive of the emotion must be chosen. This is Pra- 
bandhadhvani and Prabandhaucitya as also Prakaranadhvani 


and Prakaranaucitya to adopt the twodold classification of 
Kuntaka. Bhoja would call this appropriate change in the 
story as Prabandhadosah^na and Kuntaka as Prakaranavakra- 
ta. Appropriateness of which suggestiveness is the touch- 
stone is meant by all these writers. Says Anandavardhana : 

II III, 10-14. 

The Angas or subsidiary themes and accessory emotional 
interests have to be developed only up to the extent proper 
to them and their Ahgin, i.e., the chief theme and its Rasa. 
Thus the episodes, the Patakas and Prakarls, in a drama, or 
the ' descriptions ’ in a Mahakavya have to observe the rule 
of Aucitya which is proportional harmony. They must not 
make one forget the main thread and sidetrack him for a 
sojourn into grounds foreign in purpose to the main theme. 
That is why Lollata condemns the descriptive digressions in 
the Mahakavyas and emphasises thereby the same principle 
of the Aucitya of proportion by demanding that everything 
must be ‘ Rasavat When this rule is not observed, faults 
are committed. By the transgression of the principles laid 


down by Anandavardhana in the above-given verses and in 
other places also, Hemacandra, who follows Anandavardhana 
and of whose system he is a clear exponent, points out that 
the following literary flaws are committed : 

I K. Anu. Ill, p. 121. 

In Harivija\’a, when the delicate sentiment of Vipralambha 
has to be delineated, the poet has succumbed to the tempta- 
tion of an overdone description of the beach and the sea. 
Such irrelevancies can be characterised as so many swellings 
on the face of a Kavya. Hemacandra does not spare even the 
major poets while considering this aspect of Aucitya. He 
criticises both the prose works of Bana and the Kavyas 
like S'ismpalavadha for their ‘ Gadus h 

2. . Hemacandra remarks 
that though the drama has to be varied in interest and many 
other emotions have to be introduced as subsidiary features, 
the poet must not concentrate on the subsidiary Ahgas and 
lose sight of the Ahgin which must be taken up and brought 
to the forefront wherever necessary. The main thread must 
never be lost sight of ; for as Hemacandra says : 

3. Irrelevant description or introduction of events, inci- 

dents or ideas that have nothing to do with the Rasa is a 
great mistake. It is ‘ These 

are the principles of Aucitya which secure proportion and 
harmony. (See also Mammata, K. Pra. VII, 13-14.) 


The fourth Dosa mentioned by Hemacandra is Prakrti- 
vyatyaya, breach of Prakrtyaucitya of which Bharata has 
spoken at length and which we referred to in the opening 
section where we held that in this concept of Prakrti, Bharata 
implicitly laid down the doctrine of Aiicitya also. All these 
Dosas are derived from Anandavardhana’s Vrtti on his own 
Karikas on Prabandhadhvani which we have quoted above. 
In this section Anandavardhana speaks of the Aucitya of 
Vibhava, Anubhava and Sahearin, all of which can be included 
in the one idea of Bhavaucitya which resolves into a question 
of Prakrtyaucitya. Aucitya is very often met with in this 
section in the III. Ud. of the Dhva. A. It is in this section 
that Anandavardhana formulates that memorable verse which 
is the greatest exposition of the concept of Aucitya and its 
place in poetry. He says here: Nothing hinders Rasa as 
Anaucit 3 'a or impropriety ; Aucitya is the great secret of Rasa. 

II III, 15. 

Bharata himself recognises how each part and incident in the 
drama has to refer to Rasa and how, otherwise, it has no 
right to exist. It is only natural, for Bharata is the writer 
who lays the greatest emphasis on Rasa to which everything 
else is subservient. Anandavardhana observes that, simply 
because Bharata has laid down a certain number of emotional 
points or incidents as Sandhyahgas, one must not try to see 
that he introduces everything mentioned by Bharata. What- 
ever is introduced must be on the score of its suggestiveness 
of Rasa and not on the score of loyalty to text. 

JT 3 11 III, 12. Dhva. A. 



Bharata himself 3a5^s so finally, after giving all the San- 
dhyangas and Anandavardhana only restates the following of 
Bharata : 

JT) 1 

N. S'. XXI, 107. 

Bharata emphasises discretion : ^ ^Tf^T ^ ^ ; this 

suitability or writing according to the needs of the context is 
only, the sense of Aucitya in a poet. 

Anandavardhana then goes to other kinds of Aucitya or 
rather points out how, not only the working out of a plot, not 
only the expression of an idea in figure, hut even the words 
and the synonyms, the case, inflection, voice etc., have to 
be suggestive of Rasa. That is, a poet should explore all 
possibilities of suggesting the vast realm of emotion — as many 
possibilities as his poor medium called language can afford. 
If a jingle can aid him, he seizes it; if a use in the passive 
voice is more effective than one in the active, he prefers it ; 
if Atmanepada suggests mere, that has to be exploited. Thus 
every bit of the medium called language from sound, word^ 
position of a word in a sentence etc., has to be thoroughly 
exploited and capital use made out of it by the poet. All 
these ideas revolve round Aucitya. If Sup, Ting, Karaka 
etc., are suggestiv'e, they are ‘ ucita appropriate. 

From this part of Anandavardhana’s work is derived Ksemen- 
dra’s Aucitya of Kriya, Karaka, Lihga, Vacana etc. Similarly 
there is the Aucitya of Pada, of a word, of a name or 


synon 3 Tn. This is the Padadhvani of Anandavardhana, found 
in the beginning of Ud. III. The ‘ suggestive word ’ or the 
' proper word ' of Anandavardhana and Ksemendra is like the 
‘ inevitable word,’ or the' ‘ strong word ’ mentioned by some 
English writers. 

Of Aucitya of Vrtti and Riti also, Anandavardhana speaks 
in the third Uddyota which is devoted to the exploration 
of all possible suggestive means in the medium of language, 
the Vyahjaka. 

I Dhva. A., Ill, p. 163. 

Aucitya regarding Rasa itself, how the main Rasa has to 
be delineated, how the Ahga-rasas are to be made to develop 
the main, what Rasas are mutually incompatible, how a Rasa 
like S'rhgara must not be so over developed as to cloy, or 
Karuna which, v hen again and again developed, makes the 
heart ‘ fade ’ (Mlana) — these are dealt with by Ananda- 
vardhana in the III Ud. In this respect also, the pitfalls 
which may be called Rasadosas, are already mentioned to some 
extent in Rudrata. Yaswarman himself mentions 

^ ^ nourishing of the Rasa at the proper time 
Rudrata gives a Dosa called \’irasa which is the introduction 
or the flowing in of an irrelevant or contiadictory sentiment 
into the current of the main Rasa. In this ^^irasa is included 
the Dosa of Viruddha rasa samaves'a of Anandavardhana. 
(See Dhva. A, III, 2, pp. 164-170). Rudrafa illustrates this 
Virasa by a case of a very inappropriate mingling of Karuna 
and S'rhgara. Another kind of Virasa according to Rudrata 
is the fault of overdevelopment of even the proper Rasa^ 



^ =q ^Ti l| 


K. A. XI, 12-14. 

The latter is Anandavardhana’s Atidipti or g?f: These 

flaws of Rasa resulting from lack of Rasaucitya are mentioned 
in the S'rhgaratilaka also : 

=q ^siT I 

^ 'mp =q qJM ll III, 20-22. 

Virasa is explained by Rudrabhatta as Viruddha rasa, inap- 
propriate or incompatible emotion and Nlrasa as the inter- 
mittent or excessive portrayal of one Rasa— fl%t 
Anandavardhana puts these ideas of Rasaucitya relating to the 
handling of the Rasas themselves thus : 

2?^: qiiq^tfi^JIT q%l> II 

3I5FHJ% ^ I 

wiifq ii 

^qi^ ^dqiq =q i in, 17-19. 

The last mentioned Vrttyanaucitya resulting in Rasanaucitya 

is an error in taste in respect of thought in the development 
of chq,racter and in the portrayal of actions and incidents 


which is called by Rudrabhatta as Patradusta. This is also 
taken by Anandavardhana as the improper atmosphere — 
A mellow temper cannot suit a bois- 
terous scene of dust-raising conflict in Raudra ; a bloody and 
tumultuous chaos goes ill with the sweetness and quite pleasant- 
ness of love or the tenderness and delicacy of Vipralambha 
and Karuna. Of this Vrttyaucitya Anandavardhana again says : 

^ Wd: II HI. 33. 

Thus Anandavardhana has shown how, in his own phraseology, 
Aucitya is the greatest secret of Rasa — j how in the 
fashioning of every part of the expression which is the body 
or the symbolic vehicle of Rasa or ‘ the empirical technique ' 
as Abercrombie would call it, the only ruling principle of the 
poet is an all-round, all-comprehensive Aucitya, with reference 
to which alone, the choice of words, of cases, of metre, the 
collocation, style, Gunas, Alahkaras — in fact every means of 
suggestion from the trifling jingle to the greatest, is in- 
telligible. This Aucitya of word and thought, Vacya vacaka, 
with refernce to Rasa is the greatest rule in poetry. To attend 
to it and write according to it is the chief duty of the poet. 

^ 11 III, 32. 

Between this verse on one side and with the verse — 

occurring in the same section in a similar context, on the 

other side, the whole theory of Aucitya is completely stated. 




If Time had spared to us the whole of Rajas'ekhara’s 
Kavya mimamsa, we would have had a larger knowledge of 
_ . , , , Rajas'ekhara’s ideas on Aucitya. Even in the 

Rajas'ekhara and *' ^ 

his wife, Avanti- first chapter of Kavirahasya that has come to 
us, Rajas'ekhara mentions Aucitya in the fifth 
section called Kavyapakakalpa. He first takes up poetic 
culture and learning and opines that all poetic culture is only 
the discrimination of the proper and the improper — Ucita 
and Anucita. 

p. 16, K. M. Gaek. edn. 

There is also an oft-quoted Sanskrit verse which gives this 
same idea regarding the larger art of man’s behaviour in 
the world. 

VO (H 

Rajas'ekhara’s wife also lays great emphasis on Aucitya ; 
for she says that Paka, ripeness or maturity of poetic power, 
is the securing of expression, — ideas, words, conceptions, 
fancies etc., — which is proper and appropriate to Rasa. 

p. 20, K. M. 

The idea of Aucitya as adaptation, the idea that in poetry 
there is no fixed rule determining Guna and Dosa and that 
things are good or bad only on the ground of appropriateness 
or inappropriateness and that, according to circumstance, even 
a Do^ may become a Guna — is also very well realised by 
Rajas'ekhara who says at the end of the chapter Kavirahasya — 


51 I 

^ W II 

?IR^T5I^ ^ >iWT^ II ' p. 112. K. M. 

The careful poet who has his eye on Aucitya employs even the 
so-called flaws and makes them excellences whereas the care- 
less writer abuses even the Gunas and spoils his expression 
by the absence of the sense of Aucitya. 

The place of Abhinavagupta in the history of Aucitya is 
important. As the author of the Locana he lucidly expounds 

and elaborates the ideas of Anandavardhana, 
Abhinavagupta i i 

who, as we have seen above, is the greatest 
name in the history of Aucitya. On the other side, Abhinava- 
gupta is the teacher in Poetics * of Ksemendra who is the 
systematiser of Aucitya. It is clear from Anandavardhana's 
treatment of Aucitya in Ud. Ill, that Aucitya naturally 
emerges out of the doctrines of Rasa and Dhvani and that 
the three cannot be separated. Abhinavagupta takes his stand 
on this triple aspect of the ‘ life ’ of poetry — Rasa first, then 
Dhvani and then Aucitya. He says : 

5ftf^ I p. 13. 

Aucitya presupposes something to which a thing is ‘ ucita ’ 
and that to which everything else is finally to be estimated as 
^ ucita ’ is Rasa which is the ‘ soul ’ of poetry. 

* Jayamangalacarya’s Kavis'iksa (Peterson’s ^ I Report, Last 

list, App. I, pp. 78-9) says : i 

* Vide Brhatkathamanjari, chap, xix, 36, 37 and Bharata- 
manjari, last chap. 7, 8. 



On the subject of Alahkaraucitya about which Ananda- 
vardhana speaks so much in Ud. II, Abhinavagupta says that 
the greatest Aucitya of Alahkara is that the term has any 
meaning at all only when there is the ‘ Alahkarya the ‘ soul 
Otherwise, it is like decorating the dead body. Decoration of 
a living body also is Anaucitya in certain cases ; ornaments 
on the body of a recluse who has renounced life appear 
ridiculous — anucita. Thus figures of speech without Rasa and 
figures of speech in places which do not need them are bad. 

p. 75. Locana. 

He thus explains Rasaucitya, i.e., the Aucitya of Bhavas, 
Vibhavas, etc., on p, 147. 

»TT^: I 

The idea of Aucitya, like that of Vakrokti, was current as a 
very frequently used term in the critical circles of Kashmirian 
Alankarikas for a long time.^Vakrokti rose out of Alankara, 
Aucitya in the wake of Rasa and Dhvani. Aucitya must have 
become more current after Anandavardhana who has spoken 
of it so much and who has said that its presence and absence 
makes and unmakes Rasa and poetry. It was so much in 
use that, by the time of Abhinavagupta, it must have been 
heading towards systematisation, even as the concept of 
Vakrokti, which, as old as Bhamaha, was given so much life in 
the critical circles that it enlarged itself and through Kuntaka 
built itself into a system. Aucitya also had assumed propor- 
tions and was in search of a writer for systematisation. The 


critics were speaking of Aucitya as the essence of poetry very 
often, more often than Rasa even. Says Abhinavagupta in 
two places criticising these critics : ‘ One cannot be indis- 
creetly using the word Aucitya by itself ; Aucitya is ununder- 
standable without something else to which things are “ ucita ” 
— appropriate. Aucitya is a relation and that to which things 
are or should be in that relation must first be grasped. That 
is Rasa, nothing less and nothing else.’ Abhinavagupta first 
proves that there is no meaning in Aucitya without Rasa. 

I p. 13. 

He again proves that Aucitya presupposes Rasa, and Dhvani 

p. 208. Locana. 

These two passages clearly show that critics there were who 
were speaking of Aucitya as the only thing enough to explain 
poetry, which according to them, was beautiful words and 
ideas set in perfect harmony — Aucitya. These critics had 
omitted the word Rasa from their vocabulary and dispensed 
with Dhvani. Abhinavagupta criticises these poor critics who 
do not understand the implication of what they say. Aucitya 
implies, presupposes and means ‘ suggestion of Rasa ’ — 
i.e., the doctrines of Rasa and Dhvani. 



Abhinavagupta thus takes his stand on the tripod of Rasa, 
Dhvani and Aucitya. Rasa is the ‘ Atman ’ of poetry and the 
fact is that it is so only through the process of Dhvani. 
Again Rasa is or can be so only through Aucitya. Thus 
these three are very intimately and inseparably associated 
together. Aucitya is as inseparably associated with Dhvani 
as with Rasa. If an Alahkara is said to suit, to be ‘ ucita ’ to, 
a Bhava, it means that the Alahkara effectively suggests that 
Bhava ; if there is said to be Gunaucitya, it means the Rasa 
there is suggested by the Guna. A word, a gender, a mere 
exclamation — these are said to be ‘ ucita and how^ ? The test 
of Aucitya, its proof, is the suggestion of Rasa. 

Another point which Abhinavagupta pointed out was that 
the breach of Aucitya resulted in ‘ Abhasata.’ A Kavya which 
does not have Aucitya is Kavyabhasa, not poetry but semblance 
of ^poetry. Improper Alahkara is Alahkarabhasa. If there is 
Aucitya we have Rasa and sentiment ; if there is Anaucitya 
due to absence of Prakrtyaucitya etc., we have Rasabhasa 
and sentimentality. 


Neither in his smaller Sarasvatikanthabharana nor in his 
bigger S'rhgaraprakasa has Bhoja any special subject under 
Bhoja ^ separate head called Aucitya. But the 
concept of Aucitya is not altogether absent 

‘ The Rasakalika (Madras MS. R. 2241, pp. 43-4), after giving 
the several conditions causing Rasa-abhasa viz., fd#- 

concludes that Anaucitya in fine is the 
basis of Rasabhasa : g>?55^ %tl — f 
etc. ’ 


from his two works. It is found in more than one place as a 
basic idea underlying many principles. Long before the 
concept of Aucitya dawned upon the literary circle, it was 
accepted in grammar as "one of the conditions that determine 
the meaning of a word in a context, when the word has more 
than one meaning. The Vakyapadiya of Bhartrhari says : 

if It II, 315.‘ 

Other writers call these ‘ S'abdarthapravibhajakas Aucitya 
.etc., as ‘ Anavacchinna s'abdartha vis'esa smrti hetus’. This 
sense-determinant of Aucitya, Bhoja mentions twice in his 
S'rhgaraprakas'a, fii st while explaining various kinds of Vivaksa 
or intention in chapter seven and then in a similar context in 
chapter twenty -five. 

In chapter xi, Bhoja calls his magnum opus, the S'rhgara- 
prakas'a by the name Sahityaprakas'a and says that, among 
other things, Aucitya is inculcated therein (p. 430, vol. II, 
Mad. MS.). 

Bhoja realises that Aucitya is a vast and elastic principle 
and that it pertains to every part of the art of poetic expression. 
We first sight Aucitya in Bhoja in his section on Dosas 
where he speaks of a Pada dosa called Apada, which means 
that a poet must use the vocabulary suited to the character 

‘ Cf. The Brhaddevata, II, 120, p. 55, Bib. Ind. edn. — 


who is speaking. A vulgar and a rustic character does not 
employ the same words as a refined city-bred man. The 
appropriate vocabulary is one of the chief conditions that call 
up the correct atmosphere. ^Inappropriate vocabulary which 
is a breach of Aucitya is the Dosa called Apada. See S. K. A. 
I, 23, pp. 19-20. Bhoja’s Vakyarthadosa called Virasa, which 
is borrowed by him from Rudrata, emphasises a principle 
of Rasa-aucitya. (See S. K. A. I, 50, p. 35.) Ratnes'vara, com- 
mentator on the S. K. A., quotes here Anandavardhana’s verse on 
Aucitya and Anaucitya — etc., and adds that 
the three following Upama dosas also are various instances of 
Anaucitya. Thirdly, the Dosa called Viruddha (S. K. A. I, 
54-57), Loka virodha, Kala virodha etc., is also based on 
Aucitya. These are only more definite and particularised 
names for varieties of Anaucitya of Vastu or Artha. In the 
sub-class of Anumana viruddha, Bhoja has a variety called 
Aucitya viruddha (see p. 40. S. K. A) and illustrates it by a 
case of an incorrect and inappropriate description of a low 
ordinary man, a Pamara, as wearing refined silk-dress. 
Fourthly, a similar instance of Anaucitya of Artha-kalpana 
is mentioned by Bhoja in connection with his S'abdaguna 
Bhavika. (S. K. A,, p. 58.) Here is an instance of the 
larger Aucitya of Adaptation, which makes Gunas of flaws. 
Besides this, there is a whole section of Vais'esika gunas at 
the end of chapter I where it is shown that as a result of 
circumstance, special context and Aucitya, all the Dosas may 
cease to be so and may even become Gunas (S. K. A., pp. 74- 
120, see esp. p. 118).^ 

K. A. p. 118. 

* See also above pp. 202-3 and 211-2. 


Aucitya figures to some extent in Bhoja's Alarhkara- 
section also. Bhoja opens his list of S'abdalarhkaras with the 
elaboration of the idea of the choice of the appropriate 
language, Bhasaucitya, which, he says, is an ornament or 
Alamkara called Jati. Certain subjects are well expressed in 
Sanskrit ; certain in Prakrt or Apabhrams'a. There is also 
the appropriateness of country or province (Des'a) and rank 
and culture of character (Patra,-uttama ; male, female etc.) 
which decides the language. Bhoja and Ratneswara point 
out all these Aucityas which are seen already in the eighteenth 
chapter of Bharata’s N.S'. called Bhasavidhana. Bhoja him- 
‘self uses the word Aucitya here and Ratnes'vara clearly 
explains the Aucitya involved in this Jati S'abdalarhkana.^ In 
chapter xi, Bhoja gives a Prabandha-ubhaya-guna, a compre- 
hensive excellence of the S'abda and Artha of the whole work, 
called “language according to the character . 
What is this Anurupya except Aucitya ? This Prabandha- 
bhasaucitya is only the extension of the Vakyalarhkara 
called Jati (p. 432, vol. ii, S'r. Pra. Mad. MS.). The second 
S'abdalaihkara of Bhoja is also a principle of Aucitya. It is 
called Gati ; it is the choice of the proper poetic form, verse 
(padya), prose (gadya), or mixed style (campu) and the choice of 
the proper metres suggestive of Rasa in the padya-class ; this 
last is only another name for Vrttaucitya. In explaining this 
Gati, Bhoja himself bases his Alahkara on Aucitya of Artha 
which he mentions twice here, (see S. K. A. II, 18 and 21.) 

II II, 18. 

’ I have spoken of these at greater length in the chapter on 
Bhoja and Aucitya in my book on Bhoja’s S'rngaraprakas'a. 
(Vol. I, pp. 191-195.) 



In chapter xi again Bhoja speaks of this, the ‘ proper metre % 
as the Prabandha-ubhaya-guna called ‘ metre according to- 

f:, ^ ^ 511^- 

fqqflddiajq: 1^[5pq^T I ” 

p. 432, vol. II. S'r Pra. Mad. MS. 

Bhoja speaks here of yet another similar principle of Aucitya, 
that again as a Prabandha-ubhaya-gana, called ‘ Rasa- 
anurupa sandarbhatva See above, p. 200. 

All these Aucityas, Bhoja does not fail to relate to Rasa ; for 
he takes these principles of Aucitya as Dosa-hana, as Guna and 
as Alamkara and all these three are, according to his statement, 
the means to secure the eternal presence of Rasa, Rasa-aviyoga. 

Lastly Bhoja speaks of Anaucitya in the very story as 
available in the original source. He says that the poet must 
leave off those Dosas or Anaucityas in the source which 
hinder Rasa and conceive the plot in a new manner. Bhoja 
calls this Prabandha-dosa-hana and Anaucitya-parihara. (See 
above, p. 218-9). Says Bhoja : 

“ ^ (R^) dqfPTR, R 81 T 

m: ^ (n^- 

” I p. 410. Vol. II. S'r. Pra. Mad. MS. 

In his S. K. A. Bhoja has the above-quoted passage on p. 642 
and he has also this Karika ; 

11 V. 126, p. 418. 

Compare Anandavardhana III. 11 and Kuntaka IV, p. 224. 


Kuntaka naturally speaks much of Aucitya which, we are 
given to understand by the Locana, was a term widely current 
Kuntaka circles of Sahrdayas of that time. Kuntaka 

was a younger contemporary of Abhinavagupta 
or wrote immediately after him. The word denoting the 
essence of poetry at that time seems to be ‘ Jivita'. For we 
find the Locana itself rendering the ‘ Atman ’ of Anandavardha- 
na as ‘ JIvita ’ twice. Kuntaka uses the same word ‘ Jlvita’ to 
praise his Vakrokti and soon Ksemendra is to use the same to 
signify the place of Aucitya. The two main facts recognised by 
Kuntaka in poetry are the utterance and its embellishment or 
its • strikingness called Alankara or Vakrokti. Besides these, 
he recognises certain general concepts which go to define his 
notion of poetry. Notable among these is the idea of Sahitya. 
Along with Sahitya, Kuntaka mentions two ‘ Sadharana 
Gunas ’ called Aucitya and Saubhagya. These general excel- 
lences pertaining to all styles of poetry are to be distinguished 
from the ‘ Asadharana Gunas special qualities, which go to 
distinguish styles into the graceful (sukumara), the striking 
(victra), and the middling (madhyama). The Sadharana Gunas, 
Aucitya and Saubhagya, are of greater importance. 

~ II ” p. 72. V, J. 

The first of these two Sadharana Gunas, Aucitya, is thus 
defined in two verses : 

li v. j. i, 53-54. 


Both kinds of Aucitya are for heightening the power of ex- 
pression, for developing the idea undertaken to be described. 
They are very general and comprehensive, referring to all 
aspects. Kuntaka describes Aucitya generally as 
— proper expression. Vide pp. 72-74. V. J. 

Kuntaka grasps the supreme importance of Rasa and 
character, f.e., Prakrti or, as Kuntaka often says, Svabhava. 
He accepts the Aucitya pertaining to these which has been 
spoken of by Bharata and Anandavardhana. Other items of 
Aucitya also are shown by Kuntaka, and everywhere, he points 
out that all Aucitya is to develop the idea or Rasa. Firstly, 
defining the speciality of S'abda and Artha in Kavya, Kuntaka 
points out the ‘ Paramarthya ’ of these two. His S'abdapara- 
marthya is only the Aucitya or Dhvani of Pada or Paryaya 
and his Arthaparamarthya is nothing but Arthaucitya. His 
Arthaparamarthya comprises cases of the propriety of minor 
fancies — Pratibhaucitya. Explaining a case of the absence of 
this Arthaparamarthya, Kuntaka remarks that the fancy of the 
poet is contrary to the greatness of the character of Sita 
and Rama. This is a case of a breach of The 

test of this Aucitya is, according to Kuntaka, Rasa. 

“ ^ 

I ” p. 21. 

On page 28, mentioning the qualities in poetry which 
should vie with each other, i,e., while explaining Sahitya, 
Kuntaka refers to Vrttyaucitya. This is either the Aucitya 


of the Kais'ikI and other Vrttis or of the Vrttis Upanagarika 
etc. The latter is the Aucitya of Riti, Sahghatana, Guna or 
Varna and Kuntaka calls ^ it Varnavakrata, which he deals 
with at the beginning of Unmesa ii. This is a case of Varna- 
Sahghatana-dhvani of Anandavardhana or Gunaucitya of 
Ksemendra. Kuntaka says that letters or sounds must be 
appropriate to the context and that certain letters unsuited 
to certain situations may help the idea and Rasa of other 

II V. J. II, 2. 

^ ^ ^ I ^ 3^: 

sP^ig^ITSITf^ I ” 

p. 80.' 

Following the principles of Alahkaraucitya pointed out by 
Anandavardhana, Kuntaka speaks further of this Varnavakrata, 
under which come S'abdalahkaras like Anuprasa and Yamaka, 

’ Vide above p. 216, Anandavardhana, III, 3-4. ^ 

etc. It is of this Aucitya of Varna that Pope speaks of in his Essay 
on Criticism : 

’Tis not enough no harshness gives oifence, 

The sound must seem an echo of the sense. 

Soft is the strain when Zephyr gently blowSy 
And the smooth stream in smoother numbers flows ; 

But when loud surges lash the sounding shore 
The hoarse rough verse should like a torrent roar. 

Hear how Timotheus Varied Lays surprise, 

And bid alternate Passions fall and rise. ’ 



that Anuprasas must not be written at a stretch and that the 
repeated letters must often be changed. 

II II, 4. 

The first principle of all Alahkaraucita is that figures must 
easily come of themselves, without the poet taking special 
elfort for them. Says Kuntaka in the Vrtti on the above Karika. 

^ I ^ 351:- 

I p. 84. 

Here Kuntaka speaks of what Anandavardhana has said that 
Rasa is lost when special effort is taken to build a structure of 

\l II Dhva. A. Il, 17. 

^ 51 I p. 86. 

In the second line of the Karika, Kuntaka has said what 
Anandavardhana has put in another form that the same sound 
effect should not be continued to a great length. 


Sl^l^ II II, 15. 

^qiq 1 Locana, p. 85. 


See Kuntaka’s Vrtti also on p. 84. Kuntaka adds another point 
of Aucitya, namely that cacophony should be avoided. Con- 
catenation of very unpleasant sounds like etc., 

are not to be written at all. Ksemendra quotes such verses of 
a poet of hundred and more works in his Kavikanthabharana 
and condemns them as devoid of even a drop of Camatkara. 
These sounds by nature, says Abhinavagupta in his Abhinava 
bharati, torture our ears, while there are other sounds that 
seem to pour nectar into our ears. 

(Dhva. A. Ill) i ^ qorf: ?i?qTqq?^q I 

^ 3 3qqF?ft5R^T: ii 

p. 415, vol. Ill, Abhi. bha. Mad. MS. 

Of Yamakaucitya pointed out by Rudrata and by Ananda- 
vardhana Kuntaka speaks thus : 

qqsR qiq 11 ii, 6-7. 

q^q: 3^ qq^qqq^i qq 

The few and rare cases of ‘ Rasavad Yamakas’ are called by 
Kuntaka ^ ‘qq’^^if&T qqqilft” p. 87. 

The suggestive Pratyaya of Anandavardhana is Pratya- 
yavakrata, having Aucitya to the context, according to Kuntaka. 
This is a case of Pratyayaucitya, the propriety of the definite 
Pratyaya or its effectiveness in suggesting the idea or emotion. 



II II, 17. 

Here are given two instances of very proper, striking and 
suggestive use of the present participle : and 

Lingadhvani or Lihgavakrata or Liiigaucitya is described 
on pp. 114-115; II, 23. 

^a^iiqrqfq I 

?T5t gpqr (I II, 23. 


Kuntaka thus often speaks of this Aucitya of every element 
to the idea (Vastu) or emotion (Rasa). He calls it Prastutau- 
citya or Svabhavaucitya or Vastvaucitya. He speaks of it 
again while describing the fivefold Kriyavaicitryavakratva, II^ 

25, p. 227. 

A case of Tense-x\ucitya is mentioned by Kuntaka in II, 

26. It is to promote the Aucitya of the idea to the Rasa that 

the poet adopts the Upagrahaucitya is dealt 

with also by Kuntaka. The poet chooses one of the two — 
Atmanepada and Parasmaipada — on the score of Aucitya. 

Unmesa III thus describes Prakrtyaucitya which Kuntaka 
calls the Svabhavaucitya of various beings and things. 


^ II III, 5-7. 

Of Vyavaharaucitya or Lokavrttaucitya, which idea is the 
basis of Bharata’s Natya, Kuntaka speaks in III, 9, p. 155. 
Thus we see how largely the idea of Aucitya looms in 
Kuntaka. As a matter of fact, in almost all cases of Kuntaka’s 
Vakrata, the test or proof of the strikingness or charm is this 
Aucitya of the various elements with reference to the Vastu 
or Rasa the depicting of which is the work of the poet. 
Vakrokti is only another name for Aucitya ! For Kuntaka 
says of Pada-aucitya that it is Pada-vakrata. 

V. J. p. 76. 

As more than once pointed out already, many of the instances 
of Anandavardhana’s Dhvani, Abhinavagupta’s Vaicitrya men- 
tioned in the Abhinavabharatl, Kuntaka’s Vakrata and Ksemen- 
dra’s Aucitya are identical. Many items of Vakrata mentioned 
by Kuntaka are seen in the Abhinavabharatl as cases of Vaicitrya, 
with exactly the same or similar illustrations and Abhinavagupta 
says that the same idea is called Suptiiigdhvani by Anandavar- 
dhana and Subadivakrata by others.^ There is bound to be 
this close relation between Aucitya, Dhvani and Vakrata. 
Criticising Kuntaka’s definition of poetry as S'abda and Artha 
siet in Vakrokti, Mahimabhatta says in V. V., Vimaras'a I : 
‘ The “ out-of-the-way-ness ” of poetic word and idea as 

* See my article on Writers Quoted in the Abhinavabharatl, 
Journal of Oriental Research^ Vol. VI. pp. 219-22. 



distinguished from those of S'astra and Loka must either be the 
Aucitya, so very essential to Rasa which is the “ Atman ” of 
poetry or be the Dhvani of Anandavardhana. If therefore the 
new Vak^lokti is only Aucitya (which as a matter of fact figures 
largely in Kuntaka’s treatment of his subject), nothing new 
is said. If this is denied, the only other possibility is that 
Vakrokti is nothing but a new name for Dhvani which really 
seems to be the fact. For the same varieties and the same 
instances as given by Anandavardhana are given by Kuntaka.’ 

2T?3?r: ‘515^15^ ’ 

JTF , 1 

5|cf!??rrT5nf^5qf^q7 I 


^ q^r5;T: I 

V. V. I, p. 28. 

Mahimabhatta wrote in the same age, just after Abhinava- 
gupta and Kuntaka. Mahima accepts Rasa as supreme and also 
the Aucitya pertaining to Rasa, Bhava and 

Mahimabhatta . ^ ^ 

Prakrti. He could not escape the idea of 
Aucitya which was in its season then. As his criticism of 
Kuntaka’s definition of poetry by Vakrokti shows, critics of his 
time were aware of only two things as specially distinguishing 
the poetic Jutterance from the ordinary or S'astraic one, viz,, 
Aucitya and Dhvani. Of these two, there is no need to specially 


speak of the former because Mahima considers it as the 
supreme necessity in so far as Kavya is accepted as utterance 
ensouled by Rasa. That ""is, according to Mahima, there can 
be no opposition to Aiicitya. It is only with Dhvani that 
he fights. 


I nf?i5.q’P«lTJTlfr[>fq5'JT; 

I ^5r ^ 5if#q n;q i 

ff q^f'tS^TTqR:. JTiqT: I ^ =q 5qR5?’':qqRT; 

V. V. I, p. 28. 

On the point of Rasa and tlie Aucitya of every element of 
expression to this Rasa, Mahima is completely in agreement with 
Anandavardhana. Anandavardhana says that if there is one 
word which is Nirasa, devoid of Rasa, it is the greatest literary 
flaw, the Apas'abda, Similarly all flaws are comprised in 
one common flaw, v)iz., hindrance to the realisation of Rasa. 
All Dosas are hindrances to Rasa and Mahima calls them by 
the common name Anaucitya. He quotes Anandavardhana’s 
memorable Karika on this subject. 

^fScT: ^5^- 


5FH0T»J: I 

V. V. I, p. 31. 

Certain ideas get certain writers as their brilliant exponents. 
Thus Sahitya gets Kuntaka as its first great exponent. To 
Mahima falls the share of expounding two ideas, Svabhavokti 
and Dosas. The most important part of Mahima’s work is 
chapter II of his V. V., devoted to a study of five important 
flaws of expression, on which the classic Kavya Prakas^a, the 
model for later compilations, draws for its own Dosaprakarana 
to a great extent. These five flaws, and all others also, are only 
the many varieties of Anaucitya which means hindrance to 
Rasapratiti. For Aucitya of Rasa and Prakrti is the greatest 
Guna, most essential for Kavya. The absence of this Aucitya 
is the greatest Dosa within which every other Dosa is included. 
Aucitya and Anaucitya pertain to the content, i.e., Rasa and 
Artha or Vastu, as well as to the outer garment of the Rasa and 
Vastu, viz,, the expression — S'abda. The former is Abhyantara 
or Antaranga — internal, while the latter is Bahiranga — 
external. Even the unsuggestive or inappropriate metre is an 
Anaucitya, one belonging to the latter category. Among 
S'abdanaucityas, Mahima says that five are to be specially 
noted; they are five Dosas named Vidheyavimars'a, Prakrama- 
bheda, Kramabheda, Paunaruktya and Vacyavacana. 

If m I 

^51 #3 ^ rTJJTT^r- 

^ I mi 3^: 



I . . . . 'T^ 

=eef;^ 1 ii. V. V. p. 37. 

Ksemendra was the pupil of Acarya Abhinavagupta in 
poetics. Ksemendra first wrote a work on Poetics called 
Kavikarnika * which is unfortunately lost to 
Ksemendra Perhaps in it he dealt with Rasa and 

Dhvani. Our sense of its loss is keen because, in his critical 
•writings spared to us we find many a touch of originality. 
Ksemendra’s Kavikanthabharana and Suvrttatilaka have only 
slight and subsidiary interest for us. It is his Aucitya* 
vicaracarca we are concerned here wdth, a small work which 
yet belongs to the class of ‘ Prasthana-works ’ like those of 
Bhamaha, Dandin, Vamana, Anandavardhana, Kuntaka and 
Mahimabhatta. As is plain from the above-gone survey of the 
concept of Aucitya, Ksemendra is not the author of Aucitya, 
but, as in the case of Vakrokti and Kuntaka, Ksemendra 
made Aucitya into a system, elaborating that concept and 
applying it to all parts of the Kavya. Ksemendra only worked 
out Anandavardhana and Abhinavagupta in whose system he 
had his being. Abhinavagupta criticised those critics w^ho glibly 
talked of Aucitya without reference to Rasa and Dhvani which 
alone render Aucitya intelligible. Just as Kuntaka's Vakrokti 
proceeds only after accepting Rasa as supreme and accepts 
akso Dhvani, so also Ksemendra’s Aucitya. Ksemendra first 
posits Rasa as the soul of poetry, as the thing whose presence 
makes Kavya ; Aucitya is its life — ‘ Jivita The term ‘ Jivita , 

as can be seen from the two quotations given above, was used 

Vide Au. V. C., K. M. Gucchaka 1, p. 115. S'l. 2. 


by Abhinavagupta to denote Rasadhvani with Aucitya. Thus 
Abhinavagupta used both the words ‘ Atman ’ and ‘ Jivita ’ as 
interchangeable and as meaning generally the essence — 
But Ksemendra made a subtle distinction between 
Soul and Life, Rasa the Atman and Aucitya the Life.^ These 
two metaphorical names and the relation between them in 
metaphysical speculations point to the fact of the intimate 
relation between Rasa and Aucitya and of how both come into 
existence together. Ksemendra’s attitude to Rasa is thus 
plainly stated even in the opening: 

II S'l. 3. 

It is to explain Rasa, by which Kavya is already explained, 
that Ksemendra offers Aucitya. Aucitya is the very life of 
Rasa, the soul of poetry and this is the natural view of Aucitya 
in the texts of Anandavardhana and Abhinavagupta. In a 
verse or in a Kavya, Aucitya gives Camatkara, Aucitya which 
is the life of Rasa. Rasa is the thing to which Aucitya is the 
greatest relation in which other things exist. He again says : 

I s'l. 5. 

I p. 115. 

' Jayamangalacarya’s Kavis'iksa (Peterson’s 1 Report, Last 
list, App. I, pp. 78-9) calls Aucitya the ‘ Jivita ’ of poetry. 

C/. also the Sahityamimamsa (TSS. 114, p. 154) : 


We had observed before that Aucitya is as unintelligible 
without Dhvani as without Rasa. As a matter of fact it had 
its greatest exposition at tlje hands of Anandavardhana only as 
a supplementary idea in the system of Rasadhvani ; for, to 
Anandavardhana and Abhinavagupta, the Soul (Atman) of 
poetry is ^ ^ and the three are inseparable. 

But such an explicit mention and acceptance of Dhvani, as 
of Rasa, are not found in the Au. V. C. But Dhvani is all 
throughout implied. We had said that the test and proof of 
Aucitya is Dhvani, the suggestion of Rasa or idea. Showing 
the propriety of Pada (which is a case of Padadhvani with 
Anandavardhana), ix., Padaucitya in a verse, Ksemendra saj^s 
that Aucitya in that word pleases us because that word in 
particular suggests the state of separation and the consequent 
suffering, ix., the Vipralambha Rasa : 

1 similarly in all instances of 
all kinds of Aucitya, Ksemendra must have sufficiently and 
clearly based his explanations of Aucitya scientifically on the 
principle of Dhvani. P'or, it is from Anandavardhana that 
the concept of Aucitya took new life. 

In most cases, Dhvani, Vakrokti and Aucitya are merely 
the more specific names for the Camatkara in a certain point. 
In his commentary on chapter XV, the opening chapter of the 
Vacikabhinaya section of the Natyas'astra, Abhinavagupta uses 
another word for this Camatkara, viz., Vaicitrya, strikingness 
or beauty or charm. Bharata gives ten grammatical divisions 
of words and Abhinavagupta says that everything in poetry, 
gender, number, name, case etc., has to be ‘ vicitra wonderful 
or striking. Having explained the Vaicitrya of all elements of 
language in poetry, Abhinavagupta reconciles to this Vaicitrya 
of his the Dhvani of Sup, Ting, Vacana etc., of Anandavar- 
dhana (Ud. Ill) and the Vakrata of Sup. etc., of others 



(Anye) meaning Kuntaka or those of whose ideas Kuntaka 
is the systematic exponent.' To these can be reconciled 
Ksemendra’s Aucit3'a of Pada, Kriya, Karaka, Lihga, Vacana, 
Upasarga, Nipata etc. Again Suptihgdhvani, Subadivakrata, 
Subadivaicitrya or Subadyaucitya is the same as some of 
the ten different kinds of Camatkara, Camatkara in S'abda, 
in Artha etc., given by Ksemendra in the third section 
of his Kavikanthabharana. As a matter of fact there 
is nothing new in Ksemendra’s Aucitya of Pada etc., except 
appreciation under a different name of the same points 
mentioned by Anandavardhana in Uddyota III of his work 
under the heads of Dhvani of Pada, Sup. etc., forming 
the numerous parts of the Vyahjaka. The Au. V. C. is vastly 
indebted to the third chapter of the Dhva. A. On the subject 
of Rasaucitya alone, while explaining Viruddha rasa sama- 
ves'a, combining of two contradictory sentiments, Ksemendra 
quotes Anandavardhana’s verse on the subject, (p. 134. Au. 
V. C.) Except for this one quotation, it must be stated 
that in this tract of his which only works out Ananda- 
vardhana’s ideas, Ksemendra has not paid adequate homage to 
Anandavardhana. He grows eloquent on Aucitya in the 
opening but strangely does not even quote the famous verse 
of Anandavardhana, etc. 

Ksemendra has elaborated and pointed out some more 
principles of Aucitya in the wider sphere of thought — Artha 
and Arthasandarbha. Most of the things in this class like 
Aucityas of Des'a, KMa, Vrata, Tattva, Sattva, Svabhava, 
Sarasahgraha and Avastha are comprehended in Prakrty- 
aucitya and in the absence of the flaw of Loka-agama»virodha, 

' Vide p. 367, Vol. II, chap. xiv. Abhi. Bha, Mad. MS. Vide 
also my article on Writers Quoted in the Abhi. Bha. in the Journal 
of Oriental Research^ Madras, Vol. VI, Part III, p. 221. See 
also above, this same chapter on this point. 


which is pointed out by all writers from Bhamaha and Dandin, 
which is part of Aucitya, and can be said to be generally in- 
cluded in Prakrtyaucitya itself which is as old as Bharata or can 
be separately called as Lokasvabhauaucitya. The Pratibhau- 
citya given by Ksemendra concerns with the minor ‘ fancies ’ 
and not with poetic imagination or genius as a whole. Simi- 
larly innumerable items of Aucitya can be elaborated and so 
does Ksemendra say in the end: ^ 

I ^ P- 60. As for instance, the propriety of metre, 
Vrttaucitya, is an interesting study. Bharata has spoken of 
it in his chapters on Vrttas and Dhruvas, xvi and xxxii. 
Abhinavagupta quotes in his Abhi. Bha. Katyayana, an old 
writer on metres, on the appropriateness of certain metres to 
certain subjects, moods and situations. 

I etc.’ 

Ksemendra reserves this subject for special treatment in his 
Suvrttatilaka. (Vinyasa iii. S'ls. 7-16). 



Ksemendra then goes to explain with illustrations what situ- 
ations and subjects should be depicted in what metres. 
Though there is bound to be a large amount of subjectivism 

‘ Vide Journal of Oriental Research, Madras, Vol. VI, Part III, 
p. 223, my article on Writers Quoted in the Abi. Bharati. 



and impressionism in this study, though, even as regards the 
question of relation of Ragas and Rasas in music, in this 
enquiry also, it may be that one same metre has many emo- 
tional significances, there is some truth in some principles of 
Vrttaucitya like the association of long metres like Sragdhara 
with descriptions of war, Vira, Raudra and Bibhatsa Rasas 
and the use of Anustubhs for narration, brief summing up 
and pointed speech. 

The concept of Aucitya was born as a supplement to 
Rasa and Dhvani and is so developed by Ksemendra, though 
it must be stated that the latter, Dhvani, is not specifically 
spoken of by him. From the verses in the beginning which 
state the doctrine of Aucitya in general, it is plain, that like 
Rasa and Dhvani, Aucitya came in as a severe criticism of 
a merely physical or ‘ materialistic ’ or a jeweller’s philosophy 
of poetry which made much only of Alaiikaras and Gunas. 
This is true not of the critical literature of Ksemendra’s time ; 
for Rasa had been established firmly as the soul of poetry 
in poetics and the discussion yet going on was only on the 
process of the realisation of that Rasa, whether it was Dhvani, 
Anumana, Bhavana and Bhoga or Tatparya and so on. 
But it is true of literary practice, of what the poets them- 
selves were doing. Ksemendra’s Aucitya is another and final 
criticism of Alankaras. 

m JT II 

mi II S'ls. 4-5. 

501T 5DTT; 11 s'l. 6. 


^ i^ ^g:3Tf^2n5qf^=c5^T s'!!!: 501 ^ 1 ^ 11 - 
3i;qsiT 'i^^^l'JIT 1 p. 116. 

An illustrative verse (which elaborates, as pointed out at the 
beginning of this paper, a verse on the same subject in 
Bharata) is also cited b}’ Ksemendra : 


qi^it %?jirqT7rsT qi 1 

• • qoi^. W-m\, k 

mi ^f% Rrig^ ?fi^^:^i%JTf g<JiT: 11 

Bharata xxiii. 64 : 

'^'^51^1 t| 1 

^ fTf2iTlqTq=^TqH 11 

Bharata says this in respect of music also where the alahkaras 
of music must be utilized only according to Rasa. 

N. S', xxxix, 73-4, p. 335-6 Kasi edn. 

Thus well has it been said by Anandavardhana that Aucitya is 
the greatest secret of Rasa and Anaiicitya, the greatest enemy. 

The section on Poetics in the Agni purana contains little 
by way of any development of the concept of Aucitya ; but it is 
also noticed here because it shows some ingen - 
^purtpa * original reshuffling of concepts and 

gives this concept of Aucitya as an Alaiikara 
of both S'abda and Artha, an Ubhayalahkara. 345/2 and 5. 



3Ttof^f?frI II 

?tf^; 1^: ^(^T)«^T W. I 


‘‘ Riti in accordance with theme and Vrtti in accordance with 
Rasa ; expression, forceful or soft (as occasion demands) — 
thus is Aucitya engendered/’ 

The unpublished Rasarnavalahkara (Mad. MS.) of Praka- 
s'avarsa is somewhat important. It is another work which 

Prakas'avarsa speaks of Aucitya as a whole as an Alahkara, 
but differs from the Agni purana in holding 

it as a S'abdalahkara. 

• ■ • • ■ 

p. 16. Mad. MS. 

Some valuable ideas on Aucitya are also given by Prakas'a- 
varsa. He defines Aucitya as the spirit of mutual help 
betw^een sound and sense, between word and idea, S'abda and 
Artha, and as an element which makes poetry great. He adds 
that to Sahrdayas, Anaucitya is the greatest offence. 

^q;qkTq^ ... 1; (rtIo 5«^cq li 


Prakas'avarsa gives a new twofold classification of Aucitya but 
does not explain the varieties further. He says that others 
have said enough on this subject.’ 

There is one more point to be considered before closing 
this account of Aucitya. Bharata has said® that Hasya Rasa 
or the sentiment of laughter is produced by 
smTH^sva Anukrti and Abhasa. It has been pointed out 
above that Abhinavagupta remarks in his 
Locana that Anaiicitya is at the root of Abhasa, as in the case 
of the S'rngarabhasa of Ravana for Sita. We can only laugh 
at it. So it is that Laulya, which is proposed as a Rasa by 
some, is made by Abhinavagupta an accessory in Hasya Rasa.^ 
In the Abhinava bharati on the text of Bharata which explains 
the origin of Hasya Rasa, Abhinavagupta discusses what con- 
stitutes the basis of the comic and points out that Anaucitya is 
at the root of the comic/ Aucitya is Rasa and Anaucitya is 
Rasabhasa and Hasya Rasa. The illustrative verse quoted by 
Ksemendra gives a series of Anaucitya and concludes 
^ Surely one with a girdle round the neck and a 

necklace at the foot will be laughed at. So it is that Bharata 
also says : 

xxiii, 69. 

This takes us to another aspect of poetry and of Aucitya. 
In poetry of Rasa, Aucitya is the very life, Jivita; but in 

^ Vide Journal of Oriental Research, Vol. VUI. Part 3 for an 
account of Prakas'avarsa and his work. 

® N. S'. VI, p. 296 ‘Gaek. edn. 

" Vide p. 342, Abhi. Bha., Gaek. edn. 

^ Pp. 296-297. Abhi. Bha.. Gaek. edn. A study of mine on 
the Comic Element in Skr. Literature (on the theory of Hasya 
and its treatment by poets) will be published 



comic writing, the very life of its Rasa, i.e., Rasabhasa or 
Hasya Rasa, is Anaucitya. Anaucitya is the secret of comic 
writing. We can well say : 

It is only with various forms of Anaucitya that Hasya can be 
developed ; all Dosas of speech and thought occur in S'akara 
and we have alread}^ pointed out above how Nyunopama and 
Adhikopama are the secrets of satire and parody. Inappro- 
priateness is at the root of all varieties of the ridiculous and 
the laughable, and this has been shown by Abhinavagupta in 
his Abhi. Bha. : 

p. 297. Gaek. edn. 

Thus Anaucitya is the Aucitya in Hasya Rasa. This Aucitya 
is that aspect called ‘adaptation’ by virtue of which, flaws 
become excellences, by change of circumstances. The incohe- 
rent and the inappropriate themselves become appropriate. 
Just as S'rutidusta, a flaw in Srhgara, is a great Guna in 
Raudra and this adaptation is one Aucitya, so also Anaucitya 
which spoils all Rasas, and is the greatest Rasadosa, is the 
greatest Rasaguna in Hasya. This is of course said of the 
fundamental basis, the root cause, Vibhava, of Hasya Rasa 
and of those conditions of inappropriateness, oddities and 
ludicrousness which are the stuff of which Hasya is made. 
And in the delineation of this Anaucitya itself producing 
Hasya, in expression and in all other parts, principles of 
internal Aucitya have to be observed. There are two old 
verses on this subject of how Anaucitya becomes Aucitya, 


of how Dosas become Gunas and of how adaptation and 
appropriateness are the only rule. 

0-5 II 

(Chaya of a Prakrt Gatha). 

>1^: srrfq^FJ I 

q?T 5 iTT(; 11 

Magha. S'. V. II, 44. 

It is all some kind of relativity in the realm of poetry. 
There is no absolute Guna and Dosa but only Ucita and 
Anucita ; and the poet takes up even Anaucitya to make 
Aucitya out of it. The poet’s attitude is as free and open in 
this respect as in respect of the question of morality in poetry. 

It is this Aucitya which Robert Bridges speaks of in his 
essay on Poetic Diction under the name ‘ Keeping a concept 
borrowed from Painting and which he describes as the 
‘ harmonising of medium ’. The following line of his explains 
his idea further : ' But in Aesthetic no Property is absurd if 
it is in keeping ’. Bridges speaks here of absurdity (Dosa) 
ceasing to be so and becoming a Guna (Vais'esika) because of 
Aucitya (keeping). 

Three doctrines form the great and noteworthy contribu- 
tions of Sanskrit Alahkara Literature to the world’s literature 
on Literary Criticism, They are Rasa, Dhvani 


and Aucitya.^ Aucitya is a very large principle 
within whose orbit comes everything else. The Aucitya-rule 
of criticism is obeyed by all others, including Rasa. 

^A survey and review of Western Literary Criticism from 
Aristotle to Abercrombie from the point of view of Skr. Alankara 
S'astra has been made by me in a separate study. 



Mahamahopadhyaya Professor S. Kuppuswami Sastriar puts 
the whole evolution of Skr. Poetics from Alahkara to Aucitya 
in a Karika and illustrates it with a graph. Within the 
big circle of Ksemendra’s Aucitya, there are three view- 
points in the shape of a triangle. The topmost point of the 
triangle is the undisputed Rasa of Bharata, which Ananda- 
vardhana and Abhinavagupta accept as the ‘ Soul ’ of poetry 
and 'which critics of Dhvani like Bhatta Nayaka and Mahi- 
mabhatta and other theorists like Kuntaka accept. Lower 
down, the two points of the triangle are the two prominent 
theories, opposed to each other, regarding the process of 
realising Rasa, viz., the Dhvani of Anandavardhana and 
the Anumiti of Mahimabhatta. Anumiti is mentioned only 
as ‘ upalaksana ’ and it stands for other anti-dhvani theories 
also, like the Bhavana and Bhoga of Bhatta Nayaka, Tatparya 
etc. Within this triangle is a smaller circle named after 
the Vakrokti of Kuntaka. This circle again contains a triangle 
within it, the topmost point of which is Vamana's RTti,y 
a concept decidedly superior to and more comprehensive 
than the tw^o lower points called Guna and Alahkara of 
Dandin and Bhamaha. Beginning with Alahkara, the theories 
get superior or more comprehensive one by one. The 
Alahkara-guna-rlti modes of criticism deal with diction and 
style in the lower sense of the terms and are classed under 
one bigger current of the study of form culminating in 
the comprehensive Vakrokti-circle of Kuntaka, wliich is also 
an approach to poetry from the formal side. The next, the 
bigger triangle begins the current of the study of the content, 
of the inner essence of poetry, viz., Rasa and the process, 
the technique by which the poet delineates it and the Sahrdaya 
gets it. All these are comprehended in the outermost 
circle of Aucitya which pertains to Rasa and everything else in 


Kavya. All the other theories only run at the back of Aucitya 
which leads the van. If there is a harmony or a beauty as 
such, innate in every part of a great poetry, it is this Auciti. 

The Karika and the graph explained above are given 
below : 

Mm. Prof. S. Kuppuswami S'astriar 





It will not be a surprise if on examining the history of the 
several names of a branch of knowledge in its long course 
through the centuries, one finds that it is not always the 
survival of the best that is the rule in the realm of nomen- 
clatura! evolution. This is borne out by an examination of 
the names of the subject of Sanskrit Poetics also which is 
called Alankdra S'dstra, not because of the absolute appro- 
priateness of that name. The name of the concept of 
Alankara stuck to the whole subject even though the concept 
itself got dethroned after a time. 

In English the subject called Literary Criticism has the 
old name Poetics or the Study of Poetry and we have 
Aristotle’s work on the subject called Poetics. In Sanskrit, 
the most common name for the subject and as a matter of 
fact, the only name which finally stood, is Alankara S'astra. 
Sometimes we have in its place the name Sdhitya Vidyd, 

says Rajas'ekhara. (K. M. p. 4). 
The name Sahitya is very much later than the name Alan- 
kara. It was evidently born out of Grammar and it slowly 



came to denote poetry itself upon the basis of Bhamaha’s 
definition of poetry * : 

I I, 16. K. A. 

Sahitya was gaining some importance after the time of 
Anandavardhana. It was taken up by tw o prominent writers 
who came immediately after Abhinavagupta, namely, Bhoja 
and Kuntaka. Sometime afterwards, we had the first regular 
work on Poetics which took the name Sahitya, namely, the 
Sahitya Mimamsa of Ruyyaka. After this, the word was in 
greater use and in later Alahkara literature one of the most 
important works had this name, namely, the Sahityadarpana of 
Viswanatha. Whenever accomplishments of men of taste were 
referred to, the word Sahitya was always used along with 
Sahgita. Though not as old as Alahkara, Sahitya is the only 
name of Sanskrit poetics, which became as common as Alahkara. 

Sahitya means the poetic harmony, the beautiful mutual 
appropriateness, the perfect mutual understanding, of S'abda 
and Artha. The concept is of great significance and I have dealt 
with it and its history in a chapter in my book ‘ Bhoja’s S'rhgara 
Prakas'a.’ Compared with Sahitya, the name Alahkara is of 
less poetic worth. It is a reminder of that stage in the history 
of Sanskrit Poetics W'hen the concept of Alahkara was sitting 
high on the throne of poetic expression. The Alahkara-age 
of Sanskrit Poetics is much older than Bhamaha and lived up 
to the time of Udbhata, Vamana and Rudrata. Its last great 
votaries were Bhoja and Kuntaka. Bhamaha’s work is called 
Kavyalahkara ; Udbhata, who commented upon Bhamaha, 
names his independent w-ork on the subject as Kavyalahkara- 
sarasahgraha ; Vamana and Rudrata only follow and name 

^See my thesis Bhoja’s S'rhgara Prakas'a, Vol. I, pt. 1, 
PD. 87-110. 


their works also as Kavyalahkara. Though Dandin seems to 
be an exception, he only proves the rule; for, though he calls 
his work Kavyadars'a or Mirror of Poetry, he is the writer 
who pays the greatest tribute to Alahkara. These ancients, 
the Alahkara-vadins, took Alahkara as the beautiful expression 
and as the distinguishing mark of poetry, and considered even 
the Rasas as only subserving this beauty of expression. Bhoja 
ardently walks behind Dandin and in his stupendous S'rhgara- 
prakas'a, erects a new and huge throne for Alahkara. Gunas 
Alahkaras, Ritis, Vrttis, Sandhis, Laksanas, Rasas, Language, 
Metre, Form of composition, namely, epic, drama etc., — why, 
everything is Alahkara to Bhoja.^ The Alahkara-age of 
Sanskrit Poetics which can roughly be marked off as ending 
with Rudrata, is also a very significant period in the history of 
Sanskrit Poetics. For, it is the analysis of the Alahkaras 
that led to the rise of Vakrokti and in another direction 
through such Alahkaras as Dipaka, Samasokti, Paryayokta 
containing a suggested element, gave rise to the concept of 
suggestion, Dhvani. Vakrokti is a continuation of Alahkara ; 
its greatest exponent, Kuntaka, describes his work, the Vakrokti 
Jivita as Kavyalahkara. 

I I. 2. 
i vrtti. p. 3 . 

V. J., De’s Edn. 

It is as a result of the importance of this Alahkara-stage 
of Sanskrit Poetics that the whole system got itself named 
after one of the several elements of poetry, Alahkara. Says 
Kumarasvamin : 

* See my Bhoja’s S'mgara Prakas'a, Vol. I, pt. ii, chapter on 
Bhoja’s Conception of Alahkara. 



p. 3, Ratnapana on the Pi'ataparudrlya ; Balamanorama Edn. 
At the hands of Vamana, Alahkara gained greater propor- 
tions ; it expanded and attained greater significance and beauty. 
It came to him from Dandin and when he turned that stone of 
Alaiikara handed to him, he found it flashing diverse hues. He 
realized that it meant Beauty. It had come to mean not only 
the small graces of the S'abdalankaras and the figures of speech 
called Arthalankaras but also the absence of all flaws and the 
presence of all excellences, in fact the sum-total of the beauty 
of poetic utterance as such, distinguished from other utter- 
ances. To Vamana, Alankara was Beauty, Saundarya, 

For the nonce, it seems as if Poetics has got a new' and 
comprehensive name, Saundarya Sdstra. The w ord ‘ Sundara’, 
the Beautiful, baffles analysis. We have to resign to the 
magic of the poet’s genius ultimately, to w hat Bhatta Nayaka 
and Kuntaka would call Kavivydpdra, Stindara and Saun- 
darya are w ords w hich Abhinavagupta uses very often in his 
descriptions of poetry in the Locana on the Dhvanyaloka. 
The synonym Cdru (^1^) is also used by Anandavardhana. 

1. p. 5 Anandavardhana. 

and P* 8 Anandavardhana. 

• p. 13 Anandavardhana. 
p. 27 Anandavardhana. 

2. i 

I Abhinavagupta, Locana, p. 29. 

5T ^ ^ ^ ^m\^: ?tT?- 

W ; 3 I Ibid. p. 72. 



Beauty is the primary factor and in its absence neither 
Alankara nor Dhvani can have any claim to be called such or 
make for poetry. 

^ ‘ ?ian I ‘ I 

‘ ?T^5fTwq;; i . . . . i 

5T I Abhinavagupta, Locana, p. 210. 

This is said of Alankara by Abhinavagupta and the point 
is stressed by Bhoja also in his S'rhgaraprakas'a (Chap. XI, 
p. 371, Vol. II, Madras MS.), where he says that the statement 
cannot be considered any Alankara, because it is 
devoid of the primary characteristic common to all Alahkaras 
(Alahkara-samanya-laksana), namely, S'ofe/nl, which is Beauty. 
Such a significant interpretation, Bhoja gives to Dandin’s 
description of Alankara, cRjsq^yqirR I 

The point is further stressed in a well-known passage by 
Appayya Diksita in his Citra mlmarhsa. 

?fqfsfq pgqr 

^ ^ ^ I ‘ . I 

p. 6. N. S. Edn. 

The same condition of the necessity of beauty applies to 
Dhvani also. It is not enough if one tries to point out in a 
case the existence of some technical Dhvani. Even Dhvani 
has to be beautiful. 

Locana, p. 17. 



Commenting on Anandavardhana’s 

etc., (p. 27, Dhva. A.) 

Abhinavagupta says : 

etc., Locana, p. 28. 

Therefore the poetic beauty is the real soul of poetic ex^ 
pression. Abhinavagupta accepts that Beauty is the essence, 
the soul of the art. 

I JrT% ^^4 I p. 33, Locana. 

It is this Beauty that is otherwise called Camatkara on 
which word Vis'ves'vara, the author of the Camatkaracandrika, 
takes his stand. The words Vicchitti, Vaicifrya, and even 
the word Vakratd finally mean only Beauty. It is the same, 
the beautiful in poetry, that is meant by the Ramaniya in 
Jagannatha’s definition of poetry. From this point of view, 
it seems that there was good chance for a new name for 
Poetics, namely Saundarya S^dstra, but it did not come up. 
The name Saundarya S^dstra would correspond to the western 
name Aesthetics. In the western literature on the subject, 
the words, the Beautiful and the Sublime, are met with. 
There are the works such as that of Longinus on the Sublime. 
One whole chapter, in his work, ‘ What is Art ?’, is devoted 
by Tolstoy to an examination of the works on Beauty. But 
the study of Beauty and Sublimity, Aesthetics or Saundarya 
S^dstra, does not strictly mean Poetics but embraces the critical 
appreciation of all Fine Arts, including sculpture, painting and 



In Uddyota I and elsewhere, Anandavardhana refers to 
writers on Poetics as Kavya-laksana-karins, for, those who 
wrote on poetry did so with the idea of defining Poetry. 
(Dhva. A. pp. 8, 10, etc.) And Kdvya-laksana can also be 
taken as a general appellation applied to Poetics in the days 
of the reign of Alankara and even earlier. Bhamaha, who 
opens his work with the w'ords — 

closes it thus with the name Kavya-laksana : 

3TW2T I 

Dandin proposes in 1. 2 of his work to write Kavya- 
laksana : 

All these names, Kavyadaksana, Alankara and Sahitya, 
are however later names. Before Bhamaha and before the 
names Alankara and the much less definite Kavya-laksana 
came into vogue, what was the name of the subject of 
Sanskrit Poetics? 

It is the list of the sixty-four arts — Catussasti Kalah — 
given by Vatsyayana in his Kamasutras that gives out the 
first glimmer in this connection. After mentioning ‘the com- 
posing of poetry * — Kavya kriya — and two of tue subjects 
helpful to that purpose namely, Lexicon (Abhidhana kos'a) and 
Prosody (Chandojnana), Vatsyayana gives a subject called 
KRIYA-KALPA. (I. iii. 16, p. 32.) What does this Kriya- 
kalpa mean ? Coming close upon composing of poetry^ 
Lexicon and Prosody, it is very likely that Kriya-kalpa 



is a subject related to literature and poetry. A reference 
to the Jayamahgala upon this reveals to us that Kriya-kalpa 
means Poetics or Alahkara S'astra. 

| tanfq (U. Abhidhana, Chandas 
and Alankara) ^ 1 p. 39. To 

explain, Kriya-kalpa must be expanded into Kavya-kriya- 
kalpa, a practical treatise showing the way to compose 

The name Kriya-kalpa consists of the two words — Kriya 
meaning kavya-kriyd and Kalpa meaning vidhi, Kriya-kalpa 
•is -the correct word. S'rTdhara’s commentary on the Bhaga- 
vata reads it wrongly as Kriya-vikalpa and that wrong form 
is given in the list of sixty-four kalas in the S'abdakalpa- 
druma and the Vacaspat^’a, both of which reproduce from 
S'ridhara. Relying on this reading, Mr. P. K. Acharya, 
in an article on Fine Arts in the Indian Historical Quarterly, 
(Vol. V, p. 206), says that Kriyavikalpa is the art of “ deri- 
v^ation and conjugation of verbs in various ways ” and that 
“ it refers to grammar and poetics as Yas'odhara says ” ! If 
the reading Kriya-vikalpa is taken as correct and is inter- 
preted as verbs and their derivation and conjugation, where 
does Poetics come in ? And nobody says that it refers to 

The Lalita vistara's list of Kalas mentions this Kriyakalpa. 
See p. 156, Lefmann’s Edn. 

Dandin says in his Kavyadars'a, I. 9 : 

Here he refers to his predecessors who wrote Kriya-vidhi. 
Vidhi simply means kalpa and here there is an indirect 



reference to the name Kriya-kalpa, which Vatsyayana has 
acquainted us with. Tarunavacaspati explains Dandin’s Kriya- 
vidhi as Racand-prakdra and the Hrdayarhgama, as Kriyd- 
vidhdna which mean the same as the Kdvya-karana-vidhi of 
the Jayamahgala. 

In a list of the sixty-four Kalas attributed to Bhamaha 
and quoted on p. 29 of Tippabhupala’s Kamadhenu on Varna- 
na’s K. A. S. and Vr., which list closely agrees with that of 
Vatsyayana, we have in the place of Kriyd-kalpa, the word 
Kdvyadaksana. This again proves that Kriya-kalpa is the 
correct word and that it is an old name for the Alahkara 

Lastly, w^e find Kriya-kalpa mentioned in the Uttara- 
kanda of the Ramayana, along with many other arts and 
branches of knowledge. Though much of the present Uttara- 
kanda may be later accretion, it may be that the cantos on the 
banishment of Sita and the recitation of the epic by her two 
sons are genuine or at least older parts of the epic. Their 
superior literary merit easily separates and marks them off. 
In canto 94, (verses 4 to 10), Valmiki describes the assembling 
of Rama and other men of learning in Rama’s court to hear 
the two boys recite the epic of Valmiki. Among the learned 
men who gathered on that occasion are mentioned 


(all the three referring to musicians), 

qft^fgcli: (those well-versed in Grammar and 
Prosody) and then we find the line — 

tfsn i s'l. 7. 

When Grammar and Prosody have been mentioned, surely 
Poetics is the only subject waiting to be mentioned and who 



else than one who is learned in Poetics deserves a seat in a 
gathering assembled to hear a poem ? 

Thus, from Dandin in a way, and from Vatsyayana and 
the Ramayana in a clear manner, we come to know that, in its 
early stages, the Alahkara S'astra was called KRIYA-KALPA.^ 

^ The semantics of the word Kriya ” is interesting to study 
in this connection. It means among many things ** a literary com- 
position ” and Apte’s Dictionary gives here apt quotations from 
Kalidasa himself. 

I Vik. I, 2. 

\ Malavikagnimitra. 

Kriya thus means Kavya and Kriya kalpa is Kavya kalpa. It is 
remarkable how the English language also has the synonym of 
Kriya, “ Work ”, used in the sense of “ a literary composition 

(“ Krti ” in South Indian music vocabulary means a music- 


At first, works on Poetics approached from the stand-point of 
Alankara and were invariably named also Kavyalankara. 
Then, with the rise of Rasa and Dhvani, works on Poetics 
approached the subject from the ‘ Atman ’ of poetry, namely 
Rasa- Dhvani. Then came Bhoja, whose work, the S'rngara 
prakas'a, among the many points which it emphasised, em- 
phasised the concept of Sahitya also, which together with the 
brilliant exposition of that concept in Kuntaka's Vakrokti 
Jivita, gave rise to a new kind of aproach fora Poetics-treatise 
in the works called Sahitya mimamsa.’ Another approach 
is that of Camatkara, the literary delight which comprehends 
all the poetical elements from Guna and S'abdalankara to 
Rasa and Dhvani. It is clear that when we read poetry, we 
have a certain enjoyment ; this enjoyment may be due in one 
place to a sound effect, to a striking idea in another, and to 
the emotional movement in still another ; but it is all the same 
one relish. 

It is a striking coincidence that, like the concept of Rasa, 
the concept of Camatkara also came into the Alankara S'astra 
from the Paka s'astra. Its early semantic history is indistinct 
and dictionaries record only the later meanings, the chief of 

* One Sahitya mimamsa is the work of Ruyyaka mentioned in 
his Alankara sarvasva, but this work has not yet come to light. 
MSS. of another Sahitya mimamsa are available in the Tanjore^ 
Madras and Trivandrum MSS. Libraries ; and this work has also 
been edited in a highly defective manner in the TSS. I have dealt 
with this work and the concept of Sahitya in a separate chapter in 
my thesis on the S'rngara Prak^'a. 



which are ‘ astonishment ’ and ‘ poetic relish In appears to 
me that originally the word Camatkara was an onomatopoeic 
word referring to the ^clicking sound we make with our 
tongue when we taste something snappy, and in the course of 
its semantic enlargements, Camatkara came to mean a sudden 
fillip relating to any feeling of a pleasurable type. Nara- 
yana, an ancestor of the author of the Sahitya darpana, inter- 
preted Camatkara as an expansion of the heart, Citta vistara, 
and held all kinds of Rasa-realisation to be of the nature of 
this Camatkara or Citta vistara, of which the best example 
was the Adbhuta rasa. But as a general and all comprehen- 
sive name for literary relish, the word Camatkara occurs even 
in the Dhvanyaloka (p. 144, N. S. edn.). In the same sense, 
the word occurs about fourteen times in the Locana of Abhi- 
navagupta (pp. 37, 63, 65, 69, 72, 79, 113, 137 and 138). From 
the reference on p. 63 we understand that Bhatta Nayaka 
also used the word in the same sense. On p. 65, Abhinava- 
gupta describes Rasa to be of the nature of Camatkara. 
Kuntaka uses the word in the same sense. The Agni purana 
equates the Caitanya of the Atman, Camatkara and Rasa. 
(Ch. 339, S'l. 2). 

Abhinavagupta’s pupil Ksemendra, whose brain went 
on many a refreshing and original line, made an approach 
to poetry through this Camatkara in one of his small but 
interesting works, the Kavikanthabharana. The third Sandhi 
of this work is called Camatkara kathana and here, Ksemendra 
analyses the points of Camatkara in a poem into ten. 


^JTrT:, I 

K. K. A. Ka^yamala Gucchaka IV. p. 129 



But the first regular Poetics-treatise to make the Camat- 
kara-approach is the Camatkara candrika of Vis'ves'vara^ 
protege of Simhabhupala (c. 1330 a.d.)*. This work opens 
with the statement that Camatkara is the Sahrdaya’s delight 
on reading a poem and that the ‘ Alambanas ’ of this Camat- 
kara in a poem are seven, viz., Guna, RTti, Vrtti, Paka, S'ayya, 
Alankara and Rasa. 

3 ^: 11 

India Office MS. No. 3966/ 

Vis'ves'vara classifies poetry into three classes on the basis of 
the nature of the Camatkara. The three classes are Camat- 
kari (S'abda citra), Camatkaritara (Artha citra and Gunibhuta 
vyangya) and Camatkaritama (V'yangyapradhana). 

In a.d. 1729, Hariprasada, son of Mathura misTa Gan- 
ges'a, wrote his Kavyaloka (Peterson^s III Report, pp. 356-7) 
in seven chapters. He solved the problem of poetry in a 
straight and simple manner by taking his stand on Camatkara 
which he called the ‘ soul ’ (Atman) of poetry. 

Rf^T 11 

^ This Vis'ves'vara must be distinguished from the author of 
the same name of the Alankara kaustubha who flourished in the 
beginning of the 18th cent. The Camatkara candrika is not yet 
published, and on the basis of its MS. in the Madras Govt. Oriental 
Library, (R. 2679), I published a study of it in the Annals of the 
BORI, XVI, i-ii, pp. 131ff. 

^ The introductory verses in the India Office MS. of the C. C. 
are not found in the Madras MS. 



It is again on the basis of this Camatkara that Jaganna- 
tha gives his most comprehensive definition of poetr)' in his 
Rasa gangadhara. Camatkara, he says, is the supermundane, 
artistic delight brought about by the contemplation of Beauty, 
and poetry is such verbal expression as is the embodiment of 
an idea conveying such Beauty. 

515?; I =? 





Sagaranandin on Laksana 

P. 28. — Sagaranandin, author of the Natakalaksanaratna- 
kos'a (edn. M. Dillon, Oxford, 1937) speaks of the Laksanas in 
two places in his work, first in lines 1464 — 1729 and then in 
lines 1734 — 1852. In the first context, he speaks of these as 
Laksanas, gives thirty-six of them and follows the Anustubh 
recension. The text enumerating these follows that in the 
Kasd edn. of the N. S'., except for a disorder from verse one, 
pada four, to end of verse two. On the function and nature of 
Laksanas, Sagaranandin gives the simile cf the Cakravarttin 
and his Samudrika Laksanas which bespeak his sovereignty, 
and adds to it a further comparison of the Laksanas to other 
good qualities with whose help a king attains to the state of 
an emperor. 

When he begins the enumeration Sagaranandin says : 

^ a remark which 

may give rise to the suspicion that, according to him, 
Bharata’s text originally contained only an enumeration and 
not definitions also ; the definitions which follow in the 



Natakalaksanaratnakos^a are the same as those found in the 
Kas'i text of the N. S'. For Prccha and Sarupya, Sagaranandin 
notes a second definition with the words ^ 

It is interesting to note that it is while dealing with the 
first Laksana called Bhusana, which is defined as “ being 
adorned with plenty of Alankaras and Gunas ”, Sagaranandin 
gives his brief treatment of the Alankaras, Svabhavokti, 
Upamana etc., and the ten Gunas, S'lesa etc. according to 

In the second context referred to above, lines 1734 — 1852, 
Sagaranandin takes Bharata’s statement 3 

and says that though Upama etc. are the generally accepted 
Alankaras, there are still others which are called Natakalan- 
karas ; and he gives here 33 Natakalankaras, some of 
which pertain to the Upajati-list of Laksanas in Bharata 
and the rest are found in the lists of Bhoja and S'arada- 
tanaya and in Vis'vanatha’s list of Natakalankaras. The 
Natakalaksanaratnakos'a shows that when Vis'vanatha gives 
a separate set of 33 items under the name Natakalan- 
kara, he is following Sagaranandin or one whom the latter 
followed or one who followed the latter. As has been 
pointed out above on p. 32, footnote one, Matrgupta is the 
earliest writer now known to speak of Natyalankaras, in 
addition to Laksanas. The next writer now known to do 
so is Sagaranandin. 

The lists of Natakalankaras in Sagaranandin and Vis'va* 
natha tally, except in two cases : in the place of Ahankara and 
Gunanuvada of Sagaranandin, Viswanatha has Utprasana and 
U pades'ana. 

At the end of the illustration of these 33 Natakalankaras, 
Sagaranandin says that these are Alankaras which exclusively 
pertain to the Nataka, i.e., the first type of drama, as its own 



Alankaras; but a poet may add to the Nataka other Alahkaras 
also. What are these other Alahkaras ? They are 57, the 27 
Aiigas of the S'ilpaka, the 10 Ahgas of Bhana, the 13 of Vithi, 
and the 7 of the Bhanika. 

»lTf^^?TT ?1H 1 ^ ^Tn'T^T^T^WTH 

Sagaranandin, lines 1852-57. 

This places Natakalahkara on a par with Sandhyaiiga, Las- 
yahga and Vlthyahga, — several thematic points which go to 
form and enrich the composition. 



Pp. 101-2. — Regarding Dr. De’s observation quoted here 
that it is Svabhavokti when words are used in the ordinary 
manner of common parlance, as people without a poetic turn 
of mind use them ” — 

it must be pointed out that no Alahkarika gives such 
a definition of Svabhavokti. See pp. 93, 96, 103, 106, 
111-4, where I have emphasised that Svabhavokti is not a 
bald or ordinary statement, but that it has also got to be 
‘ striking ’. 






P. 131-2. — Regarding Bana’s verse on the literary habits 
distinguishing writers of the different parts of India, — 
etc. — 

compare Katyayana’s remark on the subject of provinces 
and metres : 

quoted by Abhinavagupta in his Abhinavabharatl, 
GOS, II, p. 246. 


P. 147-9. — Regarding Rajas'ekhara’s high praise of the 
Vaidarbhi Riti and his mention of Madhurya and Prasada as 
its essential Gunas, on which both his Kavyamimamsa and 
Balaramayana have been quoted by me — 

the following may also be quoted on the same subject 
from Rajas'ekhara’s Viddhasalabhahjika — 

3# 1^1 flf^: I I 3Tft 

SI?IT?: I Act I. p. 40. Jivananda Vidyasagara’s edn. 



P. 208. — Lollata’s verse that Yamaka, Anuloma etc., are 
undesirable, II, quoted here — 



this is quoted, with mention of Lollata’s name, also b-y 
Jayamahgalacarya, in his Kavis'iksa. See Peterson’s I Report, 
App. I, p. 79. The text is corrupt as printed there. 




P. 260, lines 16-19 — On Alankaras containing a suggested 
’C^lement and the evolution therefrom of the concept of Dhvani 
mentioned here — 

see my Bhoja’s S'rhgara Prakas'a, Vol. I, pt. 1, pp. 145-7. 


Pp. 261-3. — On .Alahkara and Beauty dealt with here — 
see also above, chapter on Use and Abuse of Alahkara, 
pp. 50-51 and 90. 





151 fn. 173-181, 251-2, 269 
Acyutaraya 38 

Anargharagliava 5, 34, 


A n argh aragh avavyakhyff 
(of Rucipati) 5, 34 


— of Nilakantha diksita 82 
— of Bhallata 82-3 

Appayya dlksita 14, 29, 

50, 66, 69, 76, 262 
AhhijTiana s'akuniala 5, 

20, 32 fn. 33, 64, 72 
A b h ij licin a s' akuiitala 
vyakhya (of Raghava 
bhatta) 5, 13, 32 fn. 33-4 
Abhinava, Abhinavagupta 
2-6, 12-25, 39, 44-6, 50, 
52-4, 58, 66, 73, 80, 119, 
186-7, 204, 227-30, 239, 

241, 245, 247, 249, 

253-4, 261-3, 269, 276 
Abhinava bharatl {Ndtya- 
s'astra vyakhya) 2-6, 
12-25, 33, 44, 66, 119, 

239, 241,247, 249,253-4,276 

Amarus'ataka 10, 20 

Amrtanandayogin 153 fn. 
Arkasuri 153 fn. 

Alaka 5, 35 

Alankdrakaustubha 270 fn. 
Alankdras'ekhara 151 

Alankarasahgraha 153 fn. 
Alaiikdrasarvasva 123, 

126-130, 268 fn. 
— of Jayaratha 128 

— of Samudrabandha 130fn. 
Avantisundari 226 

As'mahavams'a 136 

As'vaghosa 87 

Am Kavi. See Valmiki 
Ananda, Anandavardhana 
19, 50-2, 54, 57, 59-62, 
64-5, 73, 80,86, 90, 146, 
184-5, 187, 204, 207, 

209, 213-25, 227-8, 237- 
9, 241-3,245-8, 256,261, 


Aparajiti (Lollata) 207. 

_ See Lollata 

Aryastavardja 72 fn. 




Udbhata 4, 43 fn. 101, 106, 

122* 126, 179 fn. 183-4, 


Upadhyaya. See Bhatta 


54-6, 81, 197, 215, 245-9 

Kanada 66 

KarpuramaTijari 148, 152, 

154 fn. 

(of Vasudeva) 148 fn. 

Kalha^ia 83 fn. 

Kavikanthahharana 239, 

245, 269 

Kavikarnika 245 

Kavis'iksa 227 fn. 246 fn. 277 
Katyayana (on prosody) 

249, 276 

Kadamharl 191, 220 

Kamasutras 264 

Kamasutravydkhya^ Jaya- 
mangald 265 

Kalidasa 49, 63, 65, 70, 76, 

82, 85,87-8, 134 fn. 162, 170 
Kdvyakautuka 4, 5, 12 

Kavyakautukaviva r a na 
(of Abhinavagupta) 5 

Kavyaprakds'a 107 fn. 

108 fn. 110, 115, 125-7 
146-7, 187-8, 220, 244 
— of Bhatta Gopala 

107 fn. 108 fn. 127 
— of Ma^ikyacandra 

115, 130 fn. 188 
— of Vidy a cakr a var tti n 

110, 126-8 

Kdvyamimamsd 131 fn. 
147-8 150, 179, 207, 

226-7, 276 


Kavyddars’a 25, 71, 77-8, 

81, 94, 103, 105 fn. 

138, 141-3, 156, 159, 

171, 202-4, 264-5 


— anon 103 fn. 

— Hrdayamgama 103-4, 266 
— of Jivananda Vidya- 
sagar 105 fn* 

— of Tarunavacaspati 25, 

103, 266 

Kdvydnus'asana (of Vag- 
bbata) 152 fn. 

Kdvydnus'dsana, satyd- 
khyd (of Hemacandra) 

92^ 104, 108 fn. 113 fn. 

114, 130 fn. 188, 208, 


Kcivydlciiikdra (of Bha- 
maha) 17, 49, 95-6, 98, 

100, 102, 117, 135-7, 

201-3, 259, 264 
Kdvydlahkdra (of Rud- 
rata) 58, 105, 191-3, 



graha ]06, 122, 183 

K dvy dlahk dr as a rasa h - 
graha vydkhyd 

—of Tilaka 106, 128, 183 
— of Pratiharenduraja 

123-5, 183-4 

Kdvydlahkdrasutras with 
Vrtti 37, 66, 107, 143-4, 

158, 167 fn. 266 

vydkhyd -kdmadheuu (of 

Tippa) 153, 266 

Kdvydloka 270 

Kuntaka 93 fn. 101-2, 
110-1, 113-4, 116, 131, 
134, 139, 161-3, 171, 

216 fn. 219, 228, 234, 




235-42, 245, 256, 259-61, 

266, 268-9 

K u mara samhhava 49, 

70 fn. 85 

Kumarasvamin 93 fn. 260 
Kumbhakarna 5, 36 

K aval ay an and a 14, 29 

Kes'ava 151 

Ksemendra 54-6, 81, 197, 
213, 215, 227, 235, 239, 
241, 245-51, 253, 256, 269 

Ganges'a mis'ra (Mathura) 270 
* Gitagovinda 36 

Gltagovi n davyakhya- 
Rasikapriya (of Kuni- 
bhakarna) 36 

(IJhatta) Gopala 107 fn. 

108 fn. 127 

CARDRALOKA 6, 14, 28, 

38, 42-3, 130 fn. 
Can dral o k a li k hy a (of 
Vaidyanatha payaguiida) 29 
C a m a t k a r a c a ndrikd 

153 fn. 270 
CiiranilniUnisd 66, 76, 262 

Jagaddhara 5, 6, 32, 34 

Jagannathapandita 188, 271 
Jagannatha (of Tanjore) 72 fn. 
Jayadeva 6, 28 

Jayaratha 128 

Jayamahgald. See under 
Kamasutras and Bhatti- 

Jayamahgalacarya 111 fn. 

246 fn. 277 
Jivananda Vidyasagar 105 fn. 

Tarunavacaspati 25, 103, 266 


(Gopendra) Tippabhupala 

153 fn. 266 
Tilaka 106, 128, 179 fn. 183 
Tilakamanjarl 92, 149 

(Bhatta) Tauta 3-5, 11-12, 
21-i 39-40, 42-3, 48 fn. 92 

Dandin 25, 43, 71, 77, 80-1, 

86, 94, 96, 99, 102-3, 

105 fn. 124, 138-149 

151, 153 fn. 156, 159, 

161, 171, 173, 177, 179, 

192, 202-4, 206, 211, 

245, 249,260, 264-7 
Das'arTipaka 4, 5, 14, 25, 

30, 44. 

— Avaloka of Dhanika 

5, 26, 35 

— of Bahurupamis^ra 5, 

35-6, no, 151 fn. 179 
Durvasas 72 fn. 

Dhananjaya. See Das'arTi- 

Dhanapala 92, 149 

Dhanika 5, 26, 35 

Dhannabinduv y a k h y d 

55 fn. 200 fn. 

Dhvanydloka 19-20, 50-2. 

55, 57, 60-2, 64-5, 80, 

86, 90, 146, 185, 204, 

214-25, 261, 269 
Dhvanydloka vydkh y d- 
Locana (of A b h i nava 
gupta) 20, 24, 50, 52-4, 

58, 80, 186, 204, 227-30 

239, 261-3, 269 

Namisadhu 51, 95 fn. 
105-6, 192, 206, 208, 


Nalacaritandtaka 149 




N alavilasanaiaka 70 fn. 
Navasahasaiikacarita 162 fn. 
Natakacandrika 5 

N atakalaksanaratnakos'a 


N a tya S' astra 2-4, 27, 
39-44, 118, 119, 134 fn. 

177 fn. 194-97,211, 218, 
222, 247, 251, 253 fn. 273-4 
N dtyas'astravyakhyd 
— of Abhinavagupta. See 
— of Udbhata 4 

— of Lollata 4, 206 

— of S'ankuka 4 

(Bhatta) Nayaka 4, 12, 

*17, 124, 127, 256, 

261, 269 

(Bhatta) Narayaiia 74 

Narayaija 269 

Nilakanthadiksita 48, 50, 

“ 54, si 137, 149, 172 
(Bhatta) Nrsimha 161 

N aisadlilyacarita 71, 73 
82, 87, 130 fn. 132 fn. 149 

Patanjali 150 

Padmagupta 162 fn. 

Prakas'avarsa 252-3 

Sana 76, 93 fn. 153 fn. 191 
pana (of Kumarasvamin) 

93 fn. 261 

Pratiharenduraja 106, 

123-5, 127, 183-4 
Prdndbharana 76 

Bahurupa mis'ka 5,35, 110, 

151 fn. 179 

Bana 49, 57 fn. 72, 78, 79, 

84, 93,96,103,105,172, 


112, 131-3, 144 fn. 150, 

170, 191, 220, 276 
Bdlaranidyana 148, 276 
BrhatkaihdmaTtjarl 227 fn. 
Brhaddevata 231 fn. 

Bhatti 43, 96-8, 117, 120-1 
Bhattikcivya 96-9, 117-8, 



— Javamangald 97-100, 
i04, 116, 118-9, 120-1 
— of Mallinatha 97 fn. 99 fn. 
Bharata 1, 6, 14, 18-20, 

26, 29-30, 32, 34-5, 

37-40, 42-5, 47, 131, 
133-4, 145, 173, 177, 
194-9, 206, 213, 217-8, 
221-2, 236, 249-51, 

253, 256, 274 
Bhartrmitra 173 

Bhartrhari 231 

Bhallata 82-3 

Bhallatas' a t a k a. See 
Bhavabhuti 84-6, 162, 170, 

205 fn. 

Bhdgavata 265 

Bhagavatavydkh y a (of 
S^ridhara) 265 

Bhamaha 17-8, 43, 49, 
94-103, 117-121, 126, 

132fn. 134-5, 139,151fn. 

162, 183-4, 192, 200-3, 

228, 245, 259, 264, 266 
Bharat ama%j an 222 fn. 
Bharavi 88 

BhdvaprakdS'a 27, 119, 

171, 175 fn. 

Bhoja 3, 5, 14, 26-8, 31-4, 

39, 42, 45-7, 53, 61 fn. 

92, 101, 103, 106-110, 

112, 139, 146, 151-2, 





175, 178-81, 189-9}, 

193, 199, 200, 203-4,212, 
219, 230-4, 259-61,268, 274 
Bhoja Canipu 57, 76 

Mangala 3 

Manjira 170 

Mammata 43 fn. 108 fn. 
110, il5, 125-8,146-8, 

187-8, 220, 244 
Mallinatha 97 fn. 99 fn. 
MahavJracarita 86 

Mahimabhatta 89-90, 

. .111-5, 132 fn. 157-9, 

167, 242-5, 256 
Magha 81, 88, 198-200, 


Manikvacandra 3, 114, 

130 fn. 188 

Matrgupta 5, 32 fn. 

33, 170, 274 
Mayuraja 170 

MalatiDiadhava 5, 34, 

84-5, 205 fn. 

(of Jagaddhara) 5, 6, 32, 34 
Mai avikdg ni m itra 1 3 4f n. 

267 fn. 

Mudraraksasa 56, 63, 82 

Municandracarya55 fn. 200 fn. 
Murari 118, 191 

MuhapaTicas'atl 12 fn. 

Meghaduta 9, 65, 85 

Yas'ovarman 204-6, 209, 223 

Rasarnavasudhakara 3, 

29, 104-5, 152-3 fn. 175-6 
Rasarnavdlahkdra 252 
Raghavabhatta 5, 13, 32fn. 


Rdjata7‘angint 83 

Rajas'ekhara 131, 147-51, 
152, 154 fn. 170, 179, 

206-7, 226-7. 276 
Rajendrakarnapura 76 

Ramacandra 70 fn. 

Rdmabhyudaya 204-6, 209 
Ramayana 57, 62, 67-8, 

70, 71, 73-4, 75, 78-9, 

81, 86-8, 111 fn. 118, 

J69, 266-7 

Rdmdyana campu. See 
Bhoja campu 
Rdvanavadha. See Bhatti- 

Ritivrttilaksana 153 fn. 
Rucipati 5, 34 

Rudrata 43 fn. 58-9, 95 fn. 
105-6, 112, 125fn. 151fn. 
153 fn. 191-3, 206, 208- 

13, 223-4, 232, 259-60 
Rudrabhatta 224-5 

Ruyyaka “ 116, 123, 126, 

127-30, 259 

Rupag'osvamin {Ndtaka- 
candrika) 5 


Lalitdsfavaratna 72 fn. 

Loilata4, 206-8, 210,219,276-7 

Raghuvams'a 70, 72, 77, 

79, 85, 87-8 
Ratnakara 5, 34-5 

Ralnes'vara 105, 107-8, 

112 fn. 132 fn. 189, 232-3 
Rasakalikd 230 fn. 

Rasagangadhara 188, 271 


93 fn. 110-11, 113-4, 116, 

122 fn. 13-1 fn. 162-7 
168 fn. 169-71, 235-42, 

260, 26 8 

Vdkyapadlya 23 1 

Vagbhata (older) 152 fn. 




Vagbhata (younger) 152 fn. 
Vagbhatalahkara 152-3 fn. 
Vaghhatalaiikaravrtti (of 
Simhadevagani) 153-4 fn. 
Vacaspatya 265 

Vajapyayana 94 fn. 

Vatsyayana 264, 266-7 

Vamana37, 66, 107, 108 fn. 
143-4, 153 fn. 157-8, 

167 fn. 205 fn. 245,256, 

25_9, 261, 266 
Vamana Bhatta Bana 69 
VaJmiki 57,‘71, 81, 86-7 

111 fn. 118, 169, 266 
Vasavadatta 78 

Vasudeva 148 fn. 

Vikatanitamba 212 

Vikramorvas’lya 63 y 267 fn. 
Vitthala diksita 153 fn. 

Viddhasdlabhanjikd 276 
Vidyacakravarttin 110, 126-8 
Vidyanatha 93 fn. 153 fn. 


Vis'akhadatta 82 

Vis'vanatha 14, 30-3, 36, 

42, 46-7, 110, 126, 259, 274 
Vis'ves'vara {Camatkdra 
candrikd) 153 fn. 270 
VisVes'vara {Alankdra- 
kanstubha) 270 fn. 

Vis'indharmottara 97, 174 

V enisamhdra 74 

Vedantades'ika 77 

V emabhupdlacarita 69 
Vaidyanatha payagunda 29 
V yaktiviveka 75, 89-90, 

111-16, 158, 167-8, 242-5 

S'ankuka 4, 209 

S abdakalpadruma 265 

S'aradatanaya 5, 15, 27-8, 
31-2,35-6, 42, 45-7, 119, 

171, 175 fn. 274 


S'irigabhupala 5, 14, 29, 

30, 33-4, 104, 147, 152- 

3 fn. 175, 178, 270 
SivaUlarnava 50, 54, 137 
Sis'upalavadha 81, 199, 

220, 255 

S'ilabhattarika 150 

S' rngdratilaka 224 

S' rngaraprakds'a 5, 26, 

*53, 60 fn. 107, 109, 110, 
173, 175, 178-9, 200, 
204-5, 230-1, 233-4, 260, 

262, 268 

S riigdrasdra 147 

S'ridhara 265 

S'ripada 151-2 

SViharsa (poet) 71-2, 77, 
82,‘87, 130 fn. 132 fn. 149 


Sabhdranj anas' at aka 48 
Samudrabandha 130 fn. 

56, 60 fn‘'l03, 105*-9, 
110, 112, 132 fn. 152, 
161, 173, 175 fn. 189, 
190, 203, 212, 230, 232-4 

— of Bhatta Nrsimha 161 
— of Ratnes'vara 105, 
107-8, 112 fn. 189, 232 

Sarvasena 170 

Sarves'vara 5, 37, 200 fn. 
Sahrdaydnand'X 75, 78 

Sagaranandin 273-5 

Sdhityakaumudl 153 fn. 

Sahityadarpana 3, 5, 30-3, 

46-7, 259, 269 

— of Kuyyaka 259, 268 fn. 
— anon. edn. TSS 37-8, 

110, 151 fn. 268 fn. 

INDEX 285 



— of Acyutaraya 38-9 

— of Sarves'\'ara 5, 37, 

200 fn. 

Simhadevagani 153 fn. 

Subandhu {Vasavadatta) 78 
Siibhasitanlvi 77 

Suvrttatilaka 245-6 

Hamsa mitthu 154 fn. 

Hainsavildsa 154 fn. 

Haravijaya 5, 34 



(of Alaka) 5, 35 

Hari (Prakrt poet) 192 

Hariprasada 270 

Harivijaya 170, 220 

Harsacarita 49, 57 fn. 

78-9, 84, 93, 131, 220 
Hrdayadarpana 4, 12, 17 

Hemacandra 3, 92, 104, 

108 fn. 113 fn. 114, 130, 
188, 190, 206-8, 




Abercrombie 225, 225 fn. 
Acharya, P. K. 265 

Aristotle 139-41, 153-4 

160, 255 fn. 258 
Authorship and Style 157 


Dickens, Charles 68 


237 fn. 

Essentials of Criticism 48fn. 

Bain 48 fn. 50 fn. 77 

Bhattacharya, Sivaprasad 

141 fn. 

Bhoja's S' ruga ra Prakds'a 
43 fn. 54, 61 fn. 108 fn. 

138 fn. 139 fn. 144 fn. 
178, 181, 203 fn. 233 fn. 

259 fn. 260 fn. 268 fn. 

269 fn. 277 
Bridges, Robert 255 

Brown, J. S. 62 fn. 68 


De, S. K. 98 fn. 99, 101, 122, 

139 fn. 140, 165 fn. 173, 275 
Demetrius 140-3, 154, 

160-1, 163 

Hunt, Leigh 


Kane, P. V. 




Keith, A. B. 

77, 84 


Sastri, S., 


2 fn. 256-7 


48 fn. 



Murry, M. 


ON STYLE 140-3, 154, 

160-1, 163 
On the Sublime 263 

Pater, W. 

59, 61, 157, 166 




Personality 48 fn. 

Pickxvick Papers 68 

Picture of Dorian Gray 

92 fn. 

Poetic Diction (Bridges) 


Poetic Diction (Quayle) 88 
Poetry As Representative 
Art 48 fn. 58 fn. 

Pope 237 fn. 

Problem of Style 155 

Quayle, Thomas 88 

Raghavan, V. 43 fn. 78, 

108 fn. 109, 110, 131 fn. 

138, 144 fn. 147 fn. 174, 
.176, 178, 194 fn. 203 fn. 

207 fn. 216 fn. 233 fn. 

248 fn. 249 fn. 253 fn. 

255 fn. 259 fn. 268 fn. 

269 fn. 270 fn. 277 
Raleigh 166 

Rhetoric and Composition 

48 fn. 50 fn. 

Ramasvami Sastri, K. S. 


Raymond 48 fn. 58 

Sankaran, a. 101 


Sanskrit Poetics ( D e ) 

98 fn. 99, 101, 122 fn. 

138 fn. 140, 165 fn. 
Schopenhauer 157-160 

Seven Arts and Seven Con- 





Sleep and Beauty 


Some Principles of Liter- 

ary Criticism 


Spingarn, J. E. 


Stevenson, R. L. 
Style (Plater) 



Style (Raleigh) 


Subrahmanya Ayyar, K.A. 

62 fn. 68 fn. 74 fn. 

Tagore, Rabindranath 

48 fn. 91 

Tatacharya, D.T.101-2,135 fn. 
Tccluiical Elements of 



Theories of Rasa and 




60 fn. 263 


60 fn. 263 

Wilde, Oscar 

92 fn. 


161, 163 

World of Imagery 

62 fn. 68 




Aksaradambara 144 fn. 145 ; 

favoured by Gaudas 131-4 
Agnipurana : its Alank, sec- 
tion a loose heap 173, in- 
debted to several writers 
and chiefly to Bhoja 173, 
179-181 ; analysis of its 
Alahk. chs. 173-4 

Anukarana (imitation, repre- 
sentation) : drama defined 
as 194 ; converts Dosas 
into Gunas 211 

Anuprasa : 

As a Riti -defining feature 
179-181, 146-7, 151 fn. ; 
as S'abdamadhurya 180 

Aucitya of 210 ; must not 
be in long series 238 ; 
patterns to change often 
238-9 ; permitted in des- 
criptive portions 86-7 ; 
rules for its use 86-7 : 

‘ UlbaQa ’ type not 
desirable 159 ; 

Causes S' a i t h i 1 y a dosa 
141 ; favoured by Gaudas 
142 ; only mild type 
favoured by Vaidarbhas 
142, 180 ; 


In Dandin 189 

— S'rutyanuprasa 141, 156, 

180 ; and Stevenson’s 
‘ contents of phrase ’ 156 

— Sthananuprasa 180 

Varieties of it called Vrtti 
( Vrttyanupr a s a) 183; 

3 kinds in Bhamaha 

183 ; 5 in Rudrata 192 ; 

8 in Hari 192-3; 12 
proposed and refuted 

by Bhoja 193 

U panagar ika (V r 1 1 y a - 
miprasa) 184; also 
called Masrna and 
Lalita 186; equated 
with Vaidarbhi riti 187; 
suggests Madhurya 187 
and goes with Kais'iki 
vrtti 186 and SVngara 
rasa 186 

GrEniya (Vrttyanuprasa) 
183-4; also called Ko- 
mala 184 and equated 
with Pancali riti 187 

Chekanuprasa 183, 187 
Parusa (Vrttyanu p r a s a) 

184 ; also called Dipta 
186; equated with Gaudi 





riti 187 ; suggests Ojas 
187 ; and goes with 
Arabhati vrtti 186 and 
V i r a , R a u d r a and 

Bibhatsa Rasas 




Vrttyanuprasa not different 

from Guna and 


(Kais'iki etc.) 


See also S'abda 


under Vrtti 

Anubhava (vivid experience) : 
created by Jati or Sva- 
bhavokti 106 

Anubhava. Rui and Vrtti as 
Anu. born of B u d d h i 
174-5 ; Anu. of Manas 
(Sattvikabhinaya) 175 ; of 
Vak (Vacikabhinaya)_ 175, 

178 ; of S'arira (Ahgi- 
kabhinaya) 174 

Anumana versus Dhvani 250, 


Anusandhana, Anus a n d h i 
(continuity) 220, 227 ; 

essence of response 220 

Anekasandhanakavyas 77-8 


Cause of Abhasa 253; cause 
of Hasya 196, 253-4; 
general name of all Dosas 
243 ; Gramya a kind of 
213; as a Vakyartha- 
dosa 200 fn ; greatest 
Rasadosa 254 ; greatest 
Dosa 196, 200 ; greatest 
defeat of Rasa 221, 244, 

251; greatest offence 252; 
in a story to be avoided 
by changes in the story 
219, 234; 

of Pravrtti 202; of Riti 201; 
of Vrtti 224-5; of metre 

244 ; of acts, port, dress 
and speech 213 

Anyapades'a 67, 82-3 ; artifi- 
cial specimens of 82-3 

Apas'abda : literary Apa- 
s'abda different from the 
grammatical 159 ; real 
Apas'abda is Nirasa (void 
of Rasa) 243 

Abhidhanakos'a 264-5 

Abhidhavyapara (poet’s ex- 
pression as a whole) 

16_, 17, 21,23: and Bhatta 
Nay aka 17. See also ■ 

. under Vyapara 
Abhinaya : is Anubhava 175 ; 
Ahgika-abhi., S'ariraram- 
bhanubhava and Arabhati- 
vrtti 175-6; Vacika-abhi., 
vagarambhanubhava and 
Bharatlvrtti 175-8; Sattvi- 
kabhi., "Mana-arambhanu- 
bhava and Sattvati vrtti 176 

Abhyasa (practice) 170 

Artha in poetry 236 

Artha matraka (bare idea) 


Arthalahkaradambara 159 

Alahkara 1, 2, 5, 6, 8-10 ff 
And Dhvani : analysis of 
some Alahk. gave rise 
to Dhvani 260 ; when 
Alahk. are suggested 52 

And Rasa : as Antarahga 
of Rasa, not Bahirahga 
51; Aucitya of Rasa 
controls Alahk. 209 ; 
exists to suit Rasa 209 ; 
flow out of Rasa 89 ; 
outer garment of Rasa 
214 ; subordinate and 
serviceable to Rasa 214 ; 
suggestion of Rasa 




object of 57 : means of 
conveying RasA 57-61 ; 
Rasa as Alarikara 58 

And Riti 141 ; as compre- 
hended in a considera- 
tion of Riti 163 ; Vicitra- 
marga {till of 169 

And Laksa^as : developing 
from Laksa^as and hav- 
ing the same name as 
some Laksanas 8-11, 
40-3 ; Laksaijas multi- 
ply Alahk. 10, 11 

A.nd Vakrokti ; analysis of 
Alahk. gave rise to Vak- 
rokti 260 ; Alahk. as 
Vakrokti 95-6 ; see 
under \^akrokti also. 

As all conprehensive 261 

As beautiful expression 260 

As beauty (Carutva, Saun- 
darya) 50, 51, 261 

As coming under Bharati 
Vrtti 177 

As constituting the beauti- 
ful form in poetry 50 

As constituting the striking- 
ness of poetic expression 50 

As the embodiment of the 
poet’s idea 90 

As expression itself with a 
turn (Bhahgi Bhaniti) 51 

As the inevitable incarna- 
tion of idea 51 

As the several ways of ex- 
pressing ideas 90 

As the striking disposition 
ot words and ideas 50-1 

Aucity of : 10, 16, 54, 55, 

210, 228, 237-9 ; aucitya 
a criticism of over- 
emphasis of 250; Aucitya 
of Rasa controls 209 



Classified into 3 main kinds 
66, by Bhoja 53 ; into 
four classes by Rudrata 

95 fn. 105 

Compared to Alahkaras of 
woman, Bhava, Hava 
etc. 51-2; toAlahkarain 
Music 52 fn. ; to saffron 
smeared on body 52 ; in- 
sufficiency of comparison 
to Kataka etc. 52-3 ; 
compared to three in- 
creasingly intimate kinds 
of ladies’ toilet 53 

Number of: Numberless 
50 ; as many as possible 
modes of attractive ex- 
pression 51 ; only three 
in Bharata 40 

In Bhatti : 96-8; difference 
on it between the Jaya- 
mahgala and Mallina- 
tha’s gloss 97 fn. 98 fn. 99 fn. 
Its purpose ; clearer or more 
effective expression 58- 
9 ; to heighten or lower 
an idea 167 ; to heighten 
effect 89 ; its purposive- 
ness as inevitable as 
that of poetry 91 

Definition of 58 

Discriminate use of 55, 60, 64 

Every thing Alahk. to Dandin 
and Bhoja 25, 139, 260 
Everything else subserving 260 
Exaggeration of its impor- 
tance 54 

Increasing manifestation of 
it natural when emotion 
swells 61-2 

Intimate Alahk. 52-3 

Its domination in Skt. 
Poetics 259-60 





Objective differentia of 
poetic expression 50 

Omnipresent in poetry 50 

Organic, necessary, struc- 
tural, irremovable and 
otherwise : 52, 59, 60, 

61, 89, 207, 215 
Proper place and function 
of 55, 59, 60, 64 

Result of the poetic acti- 
vity called Varnana 8 

Rules for the proper use of 
61, 64, 209, 


Should not be an over- 
growth 214 

Should not be emphasised 
in drama 217 

Should not necessitate 
special effort 89, 215, 238 
Skt. Poetics named after 

51, 258-261, 264, 268 
Thematic points in drama 
as _ 275 

Those in the Ramayana 
discussed 67, 70-1, 73-4, 

78-9, 81 

Those in Rudrata’s Vas- 
tava set 105 

Use and abuse of 48-91, 197 
Use of particular Alahk. 

discussed 56-7, 64-88 

Atis'ayokti 11, 23, 40, 41, 73, 

77, 96, 97 fn. 

Atyukti 73, 143 ; loved by 

Gaudas 143 

Anyapades'a 42 

Anyokti, see Anyapades'a. 
Aprastutapras'amsa 23, 82 

Arthapatti 41 

As'is 43, 101 

Utpreksa 76-7, 96, 131-2; 
appropriate 77 ; inappro- 

priate 76-7 ; endless in 
Baija 79, favourite of 
Daksinatyas 131-4 

— Hetutpreksa 57 

Udatta 42 

Upama 10, 21, 23, 24, 34, 

40, 56-7, 58-9, 

66-73, 81 

— Appayya on 66 ; Abhi- 
nava on 66 ; Varnana 
on 66 ; and philosophical 
teachings 66-67; its great- 
ness 66-7 ; its purpose to 
convey idea better 58, 

67 ; the basis of numerous 
other figures, 66 ; two 
kinds, emotional and 
intellectual 67 

Ullekha 41 

Aupamya. See Upama. 

Dipaka 10, 40 

Drstanta 41 

Nidars'ana 41 

Parii^ama ; develops from 
Riipaka 75 ; its defect 75 

Paryayokta 65, 76 

Pratisedha 43 

Pras'amsopama 11, 40 

Preyas 42, 76 

Bhava 125 fn. 

Bhavika. See separately. 
Bhavikacchavi 130 fn. 

Bhrantiman 76 

Mithyadhj^avasaya 43 

Yathasarikhya 75, 96; can- 
not be spontaneous 75 ; 
rejected by Kuntaka 75 

Yukti 43 

Rasavad 76 ; and Bhavika 


Rupaka 10, 40, 41, 43, 61, 

65, 67, 73, 81 ; and eco- 
nomy of language 67 ; 





and emotion 67 
in » 

S'lesa: 21, 

» 73-5, 81 

41, 95, 99, 100 

34, 41, 61, 65, 
77-80, 131-3 ; charming 
instances of 78-80 ; effec- 
tive in gnomic poetry 
and Catus 79 ; favourite 
of Udicyas 131-3 ; helps 
all Alahkaras, except 
•. • Svabhavokti 78-80; its 
daws 27 ; overdoing of 
7 9-80; S'abdabhahga 
variety of 79-80 

— S4istopama 34 

Samasokti 80-81 ; over-done 
81; S'astraic variety 
of 82 

Samuccaya 42 

Sams'aya 4 1 

Suksma 95, 99, 100 

Hetu 41, 43, 95, 99, 100 

— Arthalahkaradambara 159 

Alaiikaras'astra: Explanation 
of the name 51, 258-62 : 
its other names 258-67 : 
called Kriyakalpa 264- 7 ; 
included in \^acikabhi- 
naya or Bharati vrtti 177 

Rasa, Dhvani and Aucit- 
ya its 3 great contri- 
butions 225 

Graphic presentation of its 
schools 256 

Alankara- vadins 260 

Alankara-age of Skt. Poetics 

208-9, 260 

Alankaras in Music 52 fn. 

Alankaras of damsels, Bha- 
va, Hava etc 174 ; Alan- 

kara in poetry compara- 
ble to 51-2 

‘ Atman ’ (soul, essence of 
poetry) ; Camatkara as 
270 ; Rasa-dhvani as 
268 ; Beauty-realisation 
as 263 

Abhasa : caused by Anaucitya 
230. See also Rasabhasa. 
As'ukavi 83 

As'rayas'rayibhava (in laksa- 
Qas) 6, 8 

Aharya (Dress, make-up) 196. 

_ See also Pravrtti. 
Aharyas'obha (artificial 
beauty) 162, 166-7 

Epacara : and D a n d i n ’ s 
Samadhi 180, 181 ; as a 
Riti-defining feature 

147, 179-181 

Upades'a, teaching as an aim 
of poetry 82 

Rsi and Ravi 92 

Aucitya 10, 19, 20, 24, 55-6, 

60, 122, 194-257 (histor^^ of) 
And Agni puraija 251-2 ; 
Abhinavagupta 227-30 ; 
Avantisu n d a r i 2 2 6; 
Anandavardhana 213- 
25 ; Kuntaka 234-42 ; 
Ksemendra 2 4 5-5 1; 
Daiidin 202-4 ; Nami- 
sadhu 208-13 ; Prakas'- 
varsa 252-3 ; Bharata 
194-8 ;Bhamaha 200-2 ; 
Bhoja 199-200, 230-4; 
Mahima 242-5 ; Magha 
198-200; Municandra 
50 fn. 200 fn. ; Yas'ovar- 
man 204-6 ; Rajas'e- 
khara 226-7 ; Rudrata 
208-13 ; Lollata 206-8 ; 
Sarves'vara 200 fn. 




And Dhvani 216, 237-42; 
cannot be separated from 
Dhvani 227, 229-30 ; 

intelligible only through 
Dhvani 245, 247 ; Dhva- 
ni its proof and touch- 
stone 219, 230, 247: 
sequel to Dhvani doc- 
trine 227-8, 250 

And Rasa : arose out of Rasa- 
doctrine 227-8 ; cannot 
be separated from Rasa 
227, 229-30 ; greatest 

secret of and relation to 
Rasa 221, 225, 246; in- 
telligible only thro’ Rasa 
229, 245, 247; life of 
Rasa 246, 253 ; most 
essential to Rasa 214 ; 
presupposes Rasa 229, 
242-3 ; mutual aucitya 
among Rasas 223 ; of 
Rasa with ref, to Patra 
(character) 205-6 

And Laksana 10, 19, 20 ; 
Aksarasahghata laksaija 
taken as Pada-aucitya 20 
And Vakrata (Vakrokti) 216, 
237-42 ; identified with 
Vakrata 241-2 ; lest of 
Vakrata 241 

As an absolute principle of 
criticism 229 ; as all im- 
portant 55 fn. 200 fn. ; 
as essence of artistic ex- 
pression 197 ; as life ’ 
of poetry 54, 198, 213, 
235, 245-6, 253 ; as ‘life’ 
of Rasa 246, 253 ; as 
mutual help between 
parts 252 ; as the ulti- 
mate beauty in Kavya 

54, 257 


As an Ubhayalankara 251 ; 
as a S's^dalankara 252 ; 
as a Sadharana guna 235 

As Adaptation 197-9, ioi-4, 
211-3, 217, 226, 232, 
254-5; as Agreement 208 , 
as Harmony 198, 204, 
206, 208, 213, 216, 219, 
255, 257 ; as Keeping 
255; as Proportion 198, 
204, 206, 208, 219; as 
Propriety 197, 198 el. 
seq. ; as Relativity 196, 
203, 255 ; as Sympathy 20S 

Of Alahkara 10, 19, 20, 54- 
56, 228, 238. (See also 
under Alahkara.) 

Of Anuprasa 237. (See also 
jjnder Anuprasa.) 

Of Aharya (dress) 194, 196, 
213: of Upasarga 240, 

248 : of Karaka222, 248; 
of Kala 248 : of Kriya 
222, 248; of Gati (verse, 
prose etc.) 233-4; of 
Gupas 10, 19, 199 (See 
also under Gunas) ; of 
Jati (languages) 233 ; of 
Tattva 248 ; of Des'a 
248; of Nipata 248; of 
Pada 20, 222-3, 231-2, 
247-8 ; of Patra 205-6 ; 
of Prakarana 219 ; of 
Prakrti 222, 248; of 
Pratibha 236, 249; of 
Pratyaya 239 ; of Pra- 
bandha 218; of Bhavas 
221, 228 ; of Yamaka 
237, 239; of Rasa 156 
(See Aucitya and Rasa 
and also separately under 
Rasa) ; of Riti 223. (See 
also under Riti) : of 




Linga 222, 240, 248 ; of 
Loka vrtta (Svlibhava) 

241, 249*; of Vakta 217; 
of Vacana 222, 248 ; of 
Varna 199-200, 215-237; 
of Vacya (expression) 
205,217; of Visaya 145, 

217, of Visaya-*Riti 145, 
of Visaya-Vrtti (Anu- 
prasa) 145 ; of Vrtta 
(metre) 244, 249; of Vrtti 
223-5, 236-7; of Vrata 
248 ; of S'abdalankaras 
•207-8, 209-10, 237 ; of 
Sattva 248 ; of Sarasari- 
graha 248 ; of Svabhava 


i t i c i s m of o v e r - e m - 
phasis on Alankara and 
Guna 250 ; determines 
Gunatva and Dosatva 
201-4, 211-3, 226,*232, 
254-5 ; doctrine deriv- 
able from Bharata 197-8, 

211, 221; explains secret 
of poetic appeal 198 ; 
first use of the word 205, 
208-9 ; greatest guna 
244 ; in drama and other 
types of composition 
217; in grammar a sense- 
determining condition 
231; looms larger than 
Rasa 229 ; makes in- 
telligible every means of 
expression 225 ; must 
heighten power of ex- 
pression 236 ; a relation 
229 ; subserved by all 
other rules 255-6 ; three 
stages in the emergence of 
the name 209 ; two kinds, 
external and internal 244 

Kalah (Catussasti) 



Kavi and Rsi 


Kavivakya a: Patravakya 


Kavivyapara. See Abhidha- 

vyapara and Vyapara 


Kavyabh ipraya 

10, 13 

Kavya : beautiful mode of 
expression its distinctive 
feature 17; difference 
from S'astra and Purana 
17 ; word and idea sub- 
ordinate to mode of ex- 
pression in 17. See also 
below Poetry. 

Kavyakriya 264-5 

Kavyapurusa (personified) 147 
Kavyalaksana 264, 266 

Kavyas'arira 6, 8^9-11, 16-17, 19 
Kuntaka : and Ananda and 
Abhinava 236-41 ; full 
development of Bhama- 
ha in 139 ; his originality 131 
Krti (musical composition) 

267 fn. 

Kriya (poetic composition) 267 
Kriyakalpa, a name of Alahk. 

S^astra 264-7 

Klistakalpana _ 71 

Ksemendra : and Ananda and 
Abhinava 245-8; and* 
Bharata 251 ; his origi- 
nality 245, 269 

Gati (gait — on stage) and 
character and Rasa 86 

(literary form, prose, verse 
etc.) and Aucitya 233 

As Riti 172 

Gadya : compounds said to 
be the life of 88 ; con- 
sidered test of a poet’s 
powers 88 ; deterioration 
in latter-day writings 88 




Guna 3, 6, 8-10, 19-20, 178, 256 
Additional gunas (in Bha- 
maha) 138, (in Kuntaka) 


Analysis of the nature of 
141-3, of Daijdin’s 138- 
9, 178-9, of Vamana’s 179 
Anitya or Vais'esika, rela- 
tive, not absolute 201-4, 

211-13, 226 
Come under Bharat! vrtti 177 
Comprehends Alaiik. and 
Rasa 163, 178-9, whole 
range of poetry 141-3 
Considered Alahkara by 
Dandin 139 

Difference from Laksana 6 
History of 178, 203 fn. 

In Bhamaha 138 

Strange notion (of Acyu- 
taraya) of 38 

Two classes : first classifi- 
cation into S'abda g. and 
Artha g. 143 ; two sets : 

3 Rasa gunas and 10 
Bandha guijas S'lesa 
etc. 8, 9 

Viparyayas of 138-9, 141 
And Aucitya : 199, 200, 215-7 

Aucitya-rule a criticism of 250 
Aucitya the greatest guna 


See also under Aucitya. 

And Rasa : 3 Rasa g. 9 ; 

inherent in Rasa as its 
dharma 6, 8,9,182,200,215 
And Riti 135-168, 182, 192 
And Vrtti 182 

And Sanghatana 138, as 

142, 146 

Asadharaija gunas (style -de- 
fining) 235, and Sadha- 


ratia gunas (of poetry 
in genel^al) 235 ; Sauku- 
marya and Ojas the 
Asadharana gunas of 
Vaidarbhi and Gaud! 161 
Vais'esika gunas : See under 
Guija and Dosa as 
Anitya or Vais'esika ; 
see also under Aucitya. 
Agramyata (as Madhurya) 179 
Arthavyakti 107-8, 123, 157 ; 

and Schopenhauer 157 
Abhijatya (of the Suku- 
mara marga) 168 

Udara 142 ; and Dhvani 
142 ; its 2 varieties 142 
Ojas: 9, 138, 144, 145, 

152 fn. 154, 181, 199, 
200,_217; and Dirgha- 
samasa-sanghatana 138; 
and Demetrius 161 ; 
Guna of Raudra rasa 
182 ; suggested by Paru- 
sa Vrtti 187 ; Vamana’s 
self-contradiction on 144 
fn. ; Ojas of Artha as 
Praudhi 205 fn. 

Kanti 104, 149, 41; of 

Dandin 142 ; of Vamana 143 
Kornalatva 138 

Prasada 9, 120, 123, 128 fn. 

138, 148, 152 fn. 199, 200 
And Asamasasanghatana 138 
And Schopenhauer 157-8; 

and Stevenson 157-8 

Guija of Sukumaramarga 168 
Secured by avoiding com- 
pounds 167-8, by avoid- 
ing superfluous words 
158, by using well- 
known words 168 

Praudhi 1 89-90, 1 93, 205 fn. ; 
Ojas of Artha as 205 fn. 





Bbavika (of Sabda) - 232 

Madhurya 8, 9, 1?0, 138, 

144, 146, 148, 152 fn. 
215,217: asAgramyata 
179: as Uktivaicitrya 
143, 167 ; as the primary 
guna of Sukumara Marga 
167 ; as uncompounded 
words 167 ; guna of 
S'rhgara 182 ; produced 
by S'rutyanuprasa 141 ; 
suggested by Upana- 
garika Vrtti 187 

Lav'^anya (of the Sukamara 
Marga) ^ 68 

SVutipes^alatva 138 

S'lesa 8, 9, 141-2; as Gha- 
tana I'l^ 

Samata 141; and Steven- 
son 137 

Samadhi 143 ; and Aupa- 
carikapra yoga 180-1; 
and Samasokti Alahk. 

80-1, 143 

Saukumarya 159, 189, 193 ; 

and Demetrius 161 

Saubhagya 235 

Guijatva : not absolute, but 
relative 196, 255 

Gumpha (poetic composition) 


Camatkara 239, 246, 247-8 
268-71 ; Agnipuraija on 
269 ; all-comprehensive 
268-9 ; and A d b h u t a 
Rasa 269 : and Dhvani, 
Vakrata_ and Aucitya 
248 ; as Atman of Kavya 
270 ; as supermundane 

delight _ 271 

Equated with Atman and 
Rasa 269 

First regular approach from 270 

In Dhvanyaloka, Locana 
and Hrdayadarpana 269 

Jagannatha on 271 

Orign onomotopoeic 269 

,, in Paka S'astra 268 

Sernanbcs of 268-9 : sever- 
al ‘ Alambanas ' of 269-70 

Ten kinds of 269 

Carutva. See Saundarya. 
Chandas 1, 3, 264, 265 

Jati (Arthalahkara). See 

(Sabdalarikara) as ap- 
propriate use of different 
languages 233 

Jatyams'aka (music) 195 

‘ Jivita ’ (life, essence of poet- 
ry) : applied to Aucitya 
54, 198, 213-235, 245-6, 

253 ; applied to Rasadh- 
vani 245-6 : applied to 
Vakrokti 235, 245 

Tattvajnana 66 

Tatparya versus Dhvani 250, 256 

Dapdin : and Bhoja 139, 260 

Dars'ana (poetic insight, per- 
ception) 48, 49, 92 

Dosas 95, 111, 254-5 

As Anitya or Vais'esika (re- 
lative) 201-4, 211-13, 
226, 232 ; Anaucitya 
general name of 243 : 
Anaucitya greatest 
dosa 196 

Become Gunas 210-4, 
211-13, 254; x^partha 
as gupa 202 ; Upama- 
dosas (A d h i k a and 
Nyuna) as gunas 213 ; 
Gramya as guna 211- 
213 ; Punarukta as guija 
202-3 ; Vyartha as guna 
202-3 ; S'rutidusta as 




guQa 204 ; Sasams'aya 
as g. 203 

Defined as hindrance to 
Rasa 243 ; five major 
kinds of ( V i d h e y a- 
vimars'a, Prakrama- 
bheda, Kramabheda, 
Paunaruktya and Va- 
cyavacana) 244-5 ; in- 
congruity with Rasa 
g r e a t e s t Dosa 196 ; 
Mahimabhatta greatest 
exponent of 244 

Of Upama (Nyuna and 
Adhika) 213, 232,254; 
of Artha 213 ; of Rasa 
209, 213, 223-5 ; of 

Vakyartha 200 fn. 232 
Atyukti 159: Apada 
231-2 : Apas'abda 153, 
243; Apusta 112 fn. 

116 fn. 132 fn ; Aprayo- 
jakapadas 157, compar- 
ed to Stevenson’s caville 
157; Aritimat 201; 
Avakara 157, 159 : Ava- 
cyavacana 111, 112, 

158 ; G r am y a 211 ; 
Niralankara 112 fn. 116 
fn. ; Nirasa 224 ; Nirasa 
as void of Rasa 243 ; 
Ney^tha 157 ; Patra- 
dusta 225 : Padapurana 
158 ; Prahelika p r a y a 
159 ; Loka viruddha 
202 ; Lokagamavirodha 
248; Vacyavacana 111, 
158; Vi rasa 232; 
Virudha 232 ; Vyut- 
panna 159 ; S'aithilya 
141, 156, Srutidusta 

204, guiia in Raudra 
154, 254, and Demetrius 154 


Irrelevant introduc t i o n s 
220 ; on-emphasis of 
the essential 220 : over- 
development of the non- 
essential or the part 220 

Dosatva not absolute but 
relative 196, 255 

Dhvani 153 fn. 214, 228-30, 

245, 250, 268 
And Alafikaras : origin in 
the analysis of some 
Alank. 260 ; and Udara 
guna (Dandin) 142 ; and 
Aucitya and Varkrata . 
237-42, 247-8; and 

Aucitya 216, 219, 230, 
245, 247-8, 250 ; touch- 
stone of Aucitya 219, 
230; and Riti 153 fn. 
All means of Dhvani wel- 
come 222 

Critics of 256 ; versus Anu- 
mana, Bhavana — Bhoga 
and Tatparya 250, 256 
Only artistic process of 
Rasa-realisation 214 

Of Karaka, Tin, Sup etc, 
222, 241, 247^8; _of 

Pada 247, 223 of (At- 
mane and Parasmai) 
Padas 222 ; of Prabandha 
218, 221 ; of Varga 215 ; 
of Sanghatana 216 ; 
sound-effect 2 2 2, of 

voice 222 

Rasadhvani 213, 229. See 
also under Rasa. 

Dhruvas (songs) 249 

Natakalankara. See Natya- 

Natya; Anukara of the 
world 131 

Natyadharmi 194 




Natyalarikara, a name .of 
Laksana : 5, 33'5, 

43 ; Matrgupta the first 
to speak of 30*33, 31 fn. 
a separate set in Bahu- 
riipa 35-6 ; a separate 
set but mostly identical 
with Upajati-list laksa- 
nas in Vis'vanatha 30-3 
and Sagaranandin 374-5 

N is's'reyasa 66 

Pataka (in drama) 207, 219 
Pada : vocabulary to suit 
*. * character 231-2 : see 
also Aucitya of Pada 
and Dhvani of Pada. 
Padadhvani 223, 247 

Panthah (Riti) 17_: 

Parispanda (activity of the 
poet) 8 ; three stages 
of 8 

Pallava (flourish of expres- 
sion) 132 fn : essence of 
poetry at its best 
132 J bane of poetry at 
its worst 132 fn. 

Paka (maturity of poetic 
culture and expression) 
38-9, 144 : as the secur- 
ing of gunas clearly and 
in full 144 

Pathyagunas 195 

Patra (character) : Kasa- 
development appropriate 
_ to_^ _ 205-6 

Patravakya x Kavivakya 74 

Prakaraijavakrata 219 

Frakari (in drama) 207, 219 
Prakrti (Nature, character) : 
194-6 ; infinite variety of 
195 ; involves Aucitya 
221 ; and Bhavaucitya 
221 ; its anaucitya 202-3, 


211, 223 ; See also S'ila, 

Pratibha (Imagination, poetic 
genius) : 8, 49, 63, 69, 

112, 115, 124, 167 ; and 
Bhavika 124, 127 ; like 
Siva’s 3rd eye or Yogic 
vision 115 I reality called 
forth by 118 » writing 
inspired by 111 

Pratyaksa, Savikalpaka and 
Nirvikalpaka 115 

Prabandha guna 117-130, 
199, 200, 233 : Praban- 
dha dosahana 219, 234 ; 
Pra. d h a r m a 9 ; Pra. 
dhvani 218, 221 ; Pra. 
ahga 26 ) Pra. alahkara 204 
Prayoga (presentation of 

drama)_ 119 fn. 

Pravrtti (Aharya, Dress, 
Make-up) 131, 134, 

_ _ 174-7, 194 

As Aharyabhinaya or Vesa- 
vinyasa 174 ; as Bud- 
dhyarambhan u b h a v a 


And Riti 131 

— Daksinatya Pravrtti and 
its gracefulness 133-4 

Bandha (poetic composition) 

17, 25 fn. 143. See also 
Gumpha and Sahghatana. 
Bandhas (Duskaras, S'abda-* 
citra) 88 ; least to do 
with poetry 88 ; Cakra- 
bandha condemned 207 

Bana • on provincial literary 
manners 131-3; his 
view of the best style 133 

Bhaniti (poetic expression) 17 

Bhallata : his poignant ex- 
perience S3 








Bhamaha • 

and Kuntaka 

139 ; has no fancy for 
Ritis 151 fn ; on the 
requisites of good poetry 


Bhavana (versus Dhvani) 


Bhavanavyapara 124, 127 

Bhavika 108, 116, 117-130: 
Udbhataon 122-3, 125-6: 
Dat;idin on 121-3 : Prati- 
harenduraja’s s i g n i fi- 
cant exposition of 123-5 ; 
Bhatti and Jayamahgala 
on 120-1 : Bhamaha on 
117-9, 120, 126: Ruy- 
yaka on 127-130 

And Bhavita, 12th Lasy- 
ahga 118-9 ; and Imagi- 
nation 124 ; and poet and 
Sah^daya 124, 127 : and 
Rasa-realisation 123-4, 

127, 130 fn. : and Rasa- 
vad and Svabhavokti 

Alahkaras 128-130 

As a Prabandhaguna 177-122 
As a Vakyalahkara 122-130 
A live concept in pre- 
Bhamaha days 122 

A necessity in poetry 118 

Its difference from some 
Alahkaras 128 ; two 
kinds of 126-7 

Bhusana, a name of Laksa^a 

5, 6, 27, 29 
Bhoga (versus Dhvani) 250, 256 
Bhoja : and Daijdin 260 : 
full d e V e 1 o pment of 
Dandin in 139 

Mahakavya : every part of it 
to be Rasavat 206-8 


Mahimabhat}.a : and Ananda 

243^’ and Mammata 244 
Marga : 12 Marga^ of 

Vacikabhinaya, Alapa 
etc. 177 

As Riti 172,177 

Mimamsa s'astra 12 

Yamaka (s^abdalahkara) 80, 

142, 237, 239 

Aucitya re. 210 ; condemn- 
ed 159, 207, 214, 220 : 
discriminate use of 210 ; 
in Dandin 179 : permis- 
sible in Rasabhasa 88, 
in descriptions 87 ; rules 
for its employment 86-7 : 
to be avoided in Rasa, 
S'rhgara (Vipralambha) 
and Karuna 86 

Yogavrtti as a Riti-defining 
feature 147-8, 151, 179-81 
Ramaniya, Ramaijiyaka. See 

Rasa 6-8, 38, 48-91, 123-130, 
143, 145, 153 fn. 154, 174, 
175, 185, 190-1, 193, 


Accepted by KuntakV 236, 

245, by Ksemendra 245, 
by Mahima 242 

Bhoja’s theory of 173 

Came from Pakas'astra 268 

Clear presentation of 123 

Concentation of the poet 
on 56, 63 

Controls mode of expression 1 45 
Dispensed with by some 
aucityavadins 229 

Everything flows from 196 

Everything to be appro- 
priate to 196, 214-5, 
dress appropriate to 194, 
fancies 195, music 195, 




speaking 195, verbal 
qualities 195, IViti 201, 
vrtti 191 

Ground of reference to esti- 
mate everything else in 
poetry 54, 196, 198, et seq. 
Helped by appropriate 
sounds 184, 186, 188, 

201, 215, 216 

Hindered by Yamaka or 
Anuprasa 86-7 

Natural discription of 92 

Not even a word to be de- 
* void of 243 

Root of every thi 2 ’ig 196 

Soul of poetry 6,54, 196,227,256 
Transparence of 133 

Vastu-Alahkara the gar- 
ment of 214 

Word devoid of it the real 
Apas'abda 243 

And Alankara 50-88,206-8, 
209-11,214-5,228. See 
also under Alankara. 

And Aucitya ; aucitya its 
greatest secret 251 ; au- 
citya to it the real test 
196 ; aucitya to it deter- 
mines Guijatva 196 ; 
makes Aucitya intelligi- 
ble 245, 247 

And Anaucitya : anaucitya 
greatest enemy of 251 ; 
anaucitya to it deter- 
mines Dosatva 196 

Aucitya of 10, 19, 44 fn. 
194-257. See also under 
Alankara, Riti and Au- 

And Gati on the stage 86 

And Guna 6, 8 ; the Gunas 
of 145, 199 ; Guna, Dhar- 
ma of 215 


AndDhvani ; realised through 
Dhvani 213-4, 229, 230 
And Bhavika 123-130 

And Ragas 250 

And Riti ; assignment of 
Rasas to Ritis 153-4 fn. ; 
in the definition of Riti 
143, 145, 153 fn. 163 ; 

Riti appropriate to 201 
And Vrtti 145; Vrttyangas; 

7 ; S'abdavrttis 184, 186 
And sound-effect 86 

And Raleigh and Pater 166 
Adbhuta 62, 199 ; and Ca- 
matkara 269 ; and Dipti 199 
Karuna 73, 80, 86, 215, 

225 ; should not be over- 
developed 223 ; S'abda- 
citra inappropriate in 80-86 
Bibhatsa85, 184, 186, 201,250 
Raudra 182, 186, 199,217, 
225, 254 ; and Dipti 

199, 215; and Gaudi riti 
201 ; harsh sounds sug- 
gestive of 200, 204, 215- 
6 ; and Ojas 217 ; sounds 
appropriate to 154 ; and 
Sragdhara metre 250 

Laulya, proposed as a 
Rasa by some 253 

Vira 186, 199; and Dipti 
199 ; and Gaudi riti 201 ; 
and Sragdhara metre 


S'rngara 8, 64, 80, 86, 182, 
186, 215, 254 ; and Kai- 
s'iki vrtti 145, 182 ; and 
Vaidarbhi riti 145, 154 
fn. 201; and Babda vrttis 
184 186 ; must not be 
overdeveloped 223 

— Vipralambha-SY n g a r a 
65, 66, 80, 214-5, 225 ; 




and Madhurya 217 ; Ya- 
maka improper in 214- 


— irsya-Vipralambha 61 

— S'rngarabhasa 253 

Hasva 186 ; and Anaucitya 
253-4 ; in Skt. Lit. 253 
fn. Laulya an accessory 
of 253 ; produced by 
Anukrti and Abhasa 253-4 
Rasa-dosas : 209, 223-5 ; Vi- 
rasa of 2 kinds 223-4 ; 
Nirasa 224 ; excess of 
Rasa 223-4 ; mix-up of 
contradictory Rasas 223-4 
Rasa-prayoga 194-5, 198 

Rasabhasa 230, 253. See 
also under Anaucitya. 
Rasaviyoga, securing eternal 
presence of Rasa 234 

Rasokti 92, 103 ; style pre- 
ferring it to Vakrokti 162 
Rasikas 172 

Ragas and Rasas 250 

Rajas'ekhara: source of Bhoja 
on Ritis 179 

Ramayana : Alarikaras in 
Ram. discussed 62, 67, 

68, 70, 7_1, 73-5, 78-9, 81 
Rudrata : and Ananda 209- 

10, 223-4 

Riti 38, 131-181, 256 

Agnipuranaon 151 fn. 
173-81 ; Kuntaka on 
139-140, 162-171 ; Kun- 
taka its greatest expon- 
ent 163 ; Dandin on 138- 
143, 154-61 : Bana on 
131-3; Bhamaha on 
134-8, 141 ; Bhoja on 
152 ; his indebtedness on 
Ritis to Rajas'ekhara 
178-181 ; Mammata on 


146-7, 187-8; Rajas'e- 
kharpf on 147-51, 
179-81 ; Rudrata on 
144-5, 153 fn. 180, 
191-2; V am ana on 
143-4, 157-158; S'iriga- 
bhupala on 147, 152-3 
fn. Minor writers on 152-4fn. 
And Dhvani as part of its 
definition 153 fn. 

And Pravrtti 131 

And Gunas : at its lower 
level in S^abdagunas 143, 
at its higher level in 
Artha gunas 143 ; as its 
constituents 167 ; the 
gunas comprehending 
A lank ar a and Rasa 

163, 178-9 

And Rasas 145, 153 fn. 

154 fn. ; Rasas as part of 
its definition 143, 153 fn. 
And provincial literary 
manners 131-7 ; dissoci- 
ation from geographical 
divisions 144, 163-4 

And ‘ style ’ 140-172 ; does 
correspond to the western 
concept of style 140-172; 
Thematic treatment of 
style in Western Lit. 153-5 
As Anubhava 146, 174-8 ; 
as Buddhyarambhanu- 
bhava 174-8 

As the characteristic way . 

of a writer 172 

As characterised by an 
attitude to every aspect 
of expression 163 

As comprehending Alan- 
kara, Rasa and the 
whole field of expression 
140, 163, 167, 169, 178-9 




As expression appropriable 
to Rasa 190 

As infinite and not strictly 
classifiable 169-172: 
one poet’s Riti subtly 
different from another’s 
171 ; two final types 
1 39-40, 161-2 ; six in 

Bhoja 190 

As the soul of poetry 143 

As \"acikabhinaya 176 

As S^abdasahghatana 146 

Anaucitya of 201 

.Aucitya of 154, 201 

Criticism of the old views 
on 164 

Defined bvAnuprasa 146-7, 

151 fn., 179-181 : identi- 
fied with Anuprasa Jatis, 
l^panagarika etc. 147 ; 
defined by guijas 138- 
168 ; defined by Samasa 
H7, 151, 153 fn. 178- 
181, 191-2 ; defined by 
other features 147, 151 
fn. Yogavrlti 147-8, 

151, 179-181 ; Upacara 
in its definition 147, 
179-181 ; the relation of 
these new defining fea- 
tures to the old ones, 
gunas 180-1 

Distinction of a poet due to 
his distinct Riti 172 

Higher and lower concep- 
tions of 139 

Origins of 131-3; pre-Bha- 
maha, pre-Dandin his- 
tory of *’131-3, 192 

Related to character of poet 
(in Skt. Lit) 131, 140, 

160, 163-171 
Related to theme 145, 1 53-5 


Synonyms of : 147-153 fn.; 
Gati, Nadai, Panthah, 
Prasthana, Marga, VaZi 

172, 177 

S'ingabhupala’s new names 
for 147, 153 fn. 

Two main types ; one pre- 
ferring S V a b hava and 
Rasa uktis and showing 
S'akti 162, another pre- 
fering V a k r o k ti and 
showing Vyutpatti 162 

Andhra (riti) 153 fn. 

Avantika (riti) 152, 190 

Gaudi (riti) 100, 133-181, 192 

And Arabhativrtti 145 ; and 
Raudra Rasa 145 ; called 
Kathina by S'inga 147, 

150 fn. ; equated with 
Parusavrtti 188 ; s u i t - 
able to Vira, Raudra and 
Bibhatsa Rasas 201 ; 
stood for vigour 145 ; 
contrasted wdth Vaidar- 
bhi 153 fn. ; possible good 
type of 135-7, 140, 161 ; 
good type comparable to 
Kuntaka’s Vicitramarga 
139, and to the Forcible 
or Elevated style 140, 

161 ; bad type compar- 
able to the Frigid or Af- 
fected st^de 161 ; possible 
overdoing of its features 


Paficali (riti) 144, 145, 147, 
150, 153 fn. 154 fn. 

180-1, 192 

Akin to Vaidarbhi 144-5 ; 
Vaidarbhi minus Ma- 
dhurya and Saukumarya 
plus Ojas and Kanti (in 
Vamana) 144; called 




Mis'ra by S'inga 147 ; 
considered neither good 
nor bad 147 ; defined as 
style with sound and 
sense well-balanced 150, 
as exemplified by Bana 
and S'lla 150 

Madhyama (marga or riti) (of 
Kuntaka) ; 165, 170; 

exemplified by Matp 
gupta, Mayuraja and 
Manjira 170 

Mis'ra ritis, one for each pro- 
vince 155 fn. 

M a g a d h i (riti) same as 
Maithili 148, 151-2, 

153 fn. 154 fn, 190 ; and 
SVipada, the Buddhist 
writer 152 fn. 

Maithili (riti) same as Ma- 
gadhi 150-2 

Latiya (riti) 145, 152, 153 fn. 

' 154 fn. 180-1, 192: 

akin to Gaudi 145 ; 
fourth Riti introduced 
by Rudrata 144 

Vacchomi (Vatsagulml) name 
of Vaidarbhi after the 
capital of V i d a r b h as , 
Vatsagulma 148 ; men- 
tioned by Rajas'ekhara 
148, by Simhadevagapi 
in addition to Vaidarbhi 
153-4 fn., by Hamsa- 
mitthu in addition to 
Vaidarbhi 154 fn. 

Vicitramarga (riti) 139, 140, 

161, 162, 169, 170, 235 ; 
becomes Gaudi if it de- 
teriorates 163, 165-171 ; 
exemplified by Baiia, 
Bhavabhuti and Raja- 
s'ekhara 170; result of 


sincerity of artistic per- 
fectioi^ outweighing sin- 
cerity of emotion 166 

Vaidarbhi (riti) 133-162, 

180-1, 188, 191 
And Kais'iki vrtti 145 

And Gunas : Madhurya 
supreme in it 145, 148 : 
Prasada its character- 
istic 148 

And Rasa ; S^rhgara its 
Rasa 145 

Also called Vacchomi 
(Vatsagulmi) 148 ; called 
Komala byS'ihgal47, 153 fn. 
As the best style 143-4, 
147-150 ; as name of un- 
compounded collocation 191 
On its excellence : Dhana- 
pala 149, NilakaQtha 
diksita 149, Rajas'ekhara 
147-9, 276; V am ana 
144 ; SViharsa 149 

Possible bad type of 135-7 ; 
possible overdoing of its 
features 135 

Sukumara marga 139, 140, 

161, 162, 165-171, 235; 
compared to the classic 
manner 163, to the Vai- 
darbhi 139-40, 161; 
exemplified by Kalidasa 
and Sarvasena 17 0; 
result of sincerity o f 
emotion 166 

Saurastri (riti) 153 fn. 

Laksanas 1-47, 177 

According to Acyutaraya 38 
,, ,, A b h i n ava- 

gupta 11, 13, 15-25, 39, 44 
According to Alaka 35 

„ ,, Kumbhakarija 





According to Jagaddhara. 34 

„ ,, Jayad?va 38-9 

,, „ Tar u nava- 

caspati 25 

„ „ Tauta 3, 4-5, 

,, ,, Dandin 25 

,, ,, Dhananjaya 25 

,, ,, Dhanika 26, 33 

,, ,, Bahurupa- 

mis'ra 35-6 
,, ,, Bharata 2, 6, 


. • „ „ Bhoja 26-7 

,, ,, MalTgupta 32 fn. 

,, ,, Ratnakara 34-5 

,, „ Raghava- 

bhatta 33-4 
,, ,, Rucipati 34 

,, ,, V^is'vanatha 30-3 

,, ,, Vaidyanatha 

payagunda 29 
,, ,, S' a r a d ata- 

naya 27-8 

,, „ S'iiigabhu- 

pala 29-30 
,, ,, Sarves'vara 37 

,, ,, Sahityami- 

mamsa 37-8 
,, ,, pre-Abhinava 

writers 6-13 
As Abhidhavyapara 16-18, 

21, 23 

,, characteristics of differ- 
ent types of Kavya 9, 131 
,, features of drama 7, 13- 

4, 26-8, 30, 33, 35 
,, Kavyas'arira 6, 8-1 1, 16, 

19, 22-3 

,, infinite 18, 24 

,, as multiplier and beauti- 
6er of Alankaras 10-1 

21-5, 40, 42 


Compared to Samudrika 
Laksanas 7, 12, 29, 37 
Compared to texture 
(Spars'a) 9 

Evolution into Alankaras 

8-11, 40-3 

Inclusion in other concepts, 
Alank. or Bhava 5, 14, 

25-6, 30, 33, 37, 44 
Lists of 45-7 ; literature on 
4-6 ; not elaborated in 
later lit. 2 

Other names of 6, 27,29-36; 
(See also Bhusana, Vi- 
bhusana, Natyalahkara) 
Relation to Alankara 2, 5-6, 

8-11, 13-23, 27-43 
,, ,, Aucitya 10, 19, 


„ ,, Bhava 5, 14, 

25-6, 30, 33, 44 
,, ,, Guna 6, 8, 

19-20,22, 33 fn. 

27-8, 39 

,, ,, Sandhyaiigas 7 

12-6, 26-7, 44 
„ ,, \Vttyangas 7 

Ten old views 5, 6-14; 
twofold (Alahkara-like 
and Bhava-like) 13-4, 

44 ; Siddha and Sadhya 
7 ; two recensions of 

Bharata’s text 3, 5, 18, 

26, 28, 31-2, 45-7” 

Anustubh recension 3, 

4, 34, 39 fn. 45-7. Upa- 
jati rec. 3-5, 28, 30, 35, 
37-9, 41, 44-7 ; Upajati 
laksanas as Naty alan- 
karas 31 (See separately 
Natyalankara) ; clever 
explanation of the two 
rec. 18 ; those common 




to both rec. 4, 45-7 ; 
differences between the 
two 3, 4, 30-1 45-7 ; in- 
inclusion of those of one 
in the other 4, 18 fn. 45-7 
Come under Bharati vrtti 177 
Lasya 118-9; Lasyarigas 275 
Lokadharmi (realism of Bha- 
rata’s stage) 131 fn. 194 
Lokasvabhava 249. See also 
Prakrti, S'ila, Svabhava. 
Vaktrokti (Vakrata) 78, 92, 

95- 6, 102-3, 1 09 - 1 0, 

168-9, 228, 235,256 
And Dhvani and Aucitya 

237-42, 241-2, 247-8 
As the striking, beautiful 
compression distinguish- 
ing Kavya 17, 43, 92, 

95, 96 ; a continuation 
of Alahkara 260 ; arose 
out of Alahkara 228, 

260; dominates in \'icitra 
marga 169 

Of Sup etc. 241,247-8 

Pervasive of the whole 
range of poetic expres- 
sion 92 ; style preferring 
it to Svabhava-ukti or 
Rasa-ukti 162 

Varnadhvani 154, 215; in 
Demetrius 154 

Varnana (poetic presentation 
and expression) 48, 92 ; 
an aspect of poetic acti- 
vity 8 

Varnavakrata 215, 237 

Vastu (idea, story) 244 ; to 
be the body of Rasa 218 
Vacikabhinaya 1 

Vacyavacaka 225 

Vartta : Antithesis of Kavya 

96- 7, 99, 100; expres- 


sion in Loka and S'astra 
96 ; ’oosely used for 
Svabhavokti or Jati 96 ; 

J ayamahgala (on Bhatt i) 
on 97 ; Dandin on 97, 

100, 104-5; Bhatti on 
96; Bhamaha on 96 

Alahkara in Jayarnahgala 
98 ; not Alahkara in 
Bhamaha 96-1 00; a 
different concept alto- 
gether in Dandin 100, 
104-5 ; two varieties in 

Jayarnahgala 97-8 

Vibhusana, a name of Lak- 
saria 6, 32 fn. 

\hvaksa 231 

Vhthyahgas 14, 275 

Xmtta (metre) 84 ; aucitya of 
249, 250 ; its need in 
poetry 84 ; Anustubh 
and narration, summing 
up and pointed speech 
250 ; Sragdhara and 
description of war, \'ira, 
Raudra and Bibhatsa 
Rasas v 250 

Vrttis : of Natya (four) 38, 
134, 174,’ 178, 182-3; 
six in Bhoja 190; the 
nature of Vastu or 
Itivrtta or ideas 182 

And Guna 145, 182; 

result of Gunas 184, 186 
And Riti 1 82 : compre- 
hends Riti 174 ; similar 
to Riti 193 ; but more 
intimate with Rasa 146 
Applied from Natya to 
Kavya 145 ; history in 
Kavya _ 145, 182-193 

As Anubhava 146, Buddh- 
yarambhanubhava 174, 




175 ;• as Cesta or whole 
dramatic actior.^ 174, 

176; as expression ap- 
propriate to Rasa 146, 

185 ; as the disposition 
of letters to suit Rasa 

184-5, 187-8 

Arabhati vrtti 176, 177 ; and 
Angikabhinaya 176 ; and 
Ojas 182, 191 ; and 

Gaudi riti 145, 182, 

191 ; and Raudra Rasa 
145, 181 ; in Kavya 182 

.Madhyamarabhati 190 

Kais'iki vrtti 134 ; and Ma- 
dhurya guna 183, 191 ; 
and Vaidarbhi riti 145, 

183, 191 ; its Rasas, 

S'rrigara and Karuna 
145, 191 ; graceful Abhi- 
naya and dress included 
in 174, 176 

— in Kavya 182 

— Madhyama Kais'iki 190 

Bharati vrtti 174, 177, 178 
As Vacikabhinaya 174-5 ; 
as the realm of Ritis 
174-5; becomes an 
Arthavrtti with changed 
meaning in Kavya 187, 
190, 193 ; includes the 
entire Alarikara S'astra 
177; its nature 190-1 ; its 
Rasas Hasya, Adbhuta 
and S^anta 191 ; whole 
S'ravya Kavya its field 182 
Sattvati vrtti 176-7 ; changes 
meaning in Kavya 190, 

193 ; in Kavya 182 ; its 
nature 190-1 ; its Rasas 
Vira and Bhayanaka 191 
— Vrttyangas 7-25 ; and 


Vrtti : several concepts of the 
name of 183 

— as Anuprasa Jatis 183 : 

See under Anuprasa 
— as S'abdavrtti 183 ; See 
separately Sabdavrtti 
and Vrttyanuprasa under 

— as Samasa Jatis 183. 

See under Samasa 
— Two kinds, Artha Vrtti 
and S'abda Vrtti 146, 

185 ; Artha \'rtti as ideas 
suitable to Rasa 185-6, 

190 ; S^abda vrtti, See 

Vaicitrya 216 fn ; another 
name of Camatkara or 
Vakrokti 247-8 

Vaidagdhya 69 ; vagvaidag- 
dhya of Agni p. com- 
pared to Vakrokti 173 
Vyapara (poet’s activity) 

8, 12, 17, 20, 266 
Vyutpatti 69, 82, 162, 164, 

170 ; style showing more 
Vyutpatti than S'akti 162 
S'akara and Dosas becoming 

Gunas in his portrayal 254 
Bakti (poetic genius) oO, 162, 

164 ; the style owing 
more to it than to Vyut- 
patti 162 

S^ankaravarmaU; King (and 

Bhallata) 83 

S'abda in poetry 236 

S'abda v rtti (Upanagarika 
etc.) 146, 183 -190; as Anu- 
prasa Jatis 146-7; as 
the Riiis 187-8; as 
varieties of Variiasang- 
hatana 188 ; as the use of 
words suitable to Rasa 185-6 





Sabdartha pravibhsjaka 
dharmas 231 

S^abdalankaras 84-88, 196, 
207-8, 209-10, 214, 237- 
9 ; inappropriate when 
Rasa IS to be supreme 
197 ; in Dandin 142, 
179; provision for 
S'abdacitra in R a s a - 
bhasa 59 

For Aunprasa, Bandhas 
(Duskara) and Yamaka, 
see separately. 

S'ilpaka, Uparupaka 275 

Sila 195-6, 207. See also Prakrti 
Sahgita 259 

Sanghatana : 

And Gu^as 138 

As collocation 192 

Aucitya of 199-200, 215-7 

Of Varnas (letters) 200; 

suitable to Rasa 215 

— S^abdasanghatana a s 

Riti * 146 

Samasa in Sanghtana as 
Riti-determinant 13 8; 

A samasa Sanghatana as 
Vaidarbhi 191 ; varieties 
of Samasa as other Ritis 


— Sanghatanadh vani 216 

Sandhyahgas 7, 25-7, 44, 

207, 221-2, 275; and 
Laksanas 7, 12-16, 27, 

44 ; suggestiveness to 
guide the use of 221 

Samasa 138, 144 

And Ojas 138, 144, 181 ; 
as a Riti-defining feature 
147, 151, 153 fn. 154 fn. 
179, 181, 191-2; long 
varieties to be avoided 
in drama 217-8; loved 


by Gaudas 150 ; ‘ men- 
tioned by Aristotle 154 : 
not favoured by Vaidar- 
bhas 168 ; ruinous to em- 
phasis and understanding 
167 ; varieties of com- 
pounded collocation call- 
ed Vrtti 183 ; taken as 
the sole Riti-determinant 
by Rudrata 191-2 ; un- 
compounded is Vaidar- 
bhi 191 ; compounded 
yields Gaudi, Pancali 
and Latiya 192 

Sahrdaya 57, 124, 168, 208, 
*235, 252, 256; his ex- 
perience a circuit start- 
ing with the poet and 
ending with hiniself 124 ; 
his experience an aesthe- 
tic re-creation 124 

Sadharmya - v a i d h a r m y a- 

pariksa 66 

Sadharanikarana (universali- 
sation) 129-30 

Samanyabhinava 52, 119fn. 
SamudrikalaksaQas^ 7 ; and 
Laksanas 7, 12, 37 

Sahitya 235-6, 244, 258-9, 
264, 268 ; concept born 
of grammar 258 ; ex- 
plained 259 ; name of 
Skt. Poeties as common 
as Alankara 259 

Sahitya vidya (personified) 

447 ; her nuptials with 
Kavya purusa 148 

Saundarya (Carutva, Rama- 
niyaka — Beauty) 50-1, 

90, 261-3; aim of the 
poet 90 ; Alankara equ- 
ated with 50-1, 261 ; 
Alankara or Dhvani 




desirable only when there 
is 24, 262 ; called pamat- 
kara 263, Ramaniya 
263, Vakrata, Vicchitti, 
Vaicitrya 263 ; of form 
necessary in poetry 4<S-50 
---In Appayya 262, Jagan- 
natha 263, Dhvanyaloka 
and Locana261 -3, Bhoja 
262, Vamana 50, 261, 

V y a k t i vivekavyakhya 
51, Western Literature 263 
•-—Its Realisation soul of 
Kavya 263 

— Poetry embodies it thro’ 
Artha and S'abda 271 

Svabhava (Character, N a - 

ture) 236, 240, 242, 248 
See also Prakrti and S^ila. 
Svabhavokti 42, 49, 58, 64, 

92-116, 244 

Agni purana on 108-9; 
Udbhata on 106; Kun- 
taka’s rejection of 93 fn, 

110, 111, 113 
Kumarasvamin on 93 fn.; 
Jayamahgala on 97-100; 
Dandin on 94, 102, 103 ; 
Namisadhu on 95 fn. 105- 
6 ; Baija on 92 ; Bhatti 


on 96-97 ; Bhamaha on 
94-6 : Bhoja on 106-110; 
Mahiman’s eloquent de- 
fence of 1 10- 16 ; Rudrata 
on 95 fn. 105 ; Ruyyaka 
on 116 ; Vamana on 107- 
8; Vidyadhara on 116, 
Vidyanatha on 93 fn. 

And Arthavyakti guna 

107-8, no 
„ Bhavika 116, 128-30 

,, Vartta 96-9 

,, Vastava group of figures 
in Rudrata 95 fn. 105 

Called also Jati 93, Svaru- 
palahkara 109 ; Rjukti 110 
Comprehended in Vakrokti 
for Bhamaha 95, 103 

Divided into 4 by Dandin 
94, 103 ; into many by 
Rudrata and Bhoja 103, 


Explained as Guna-ukti by 
Bhoja ' 109-110 

Should be striking and 
vivid 93, 103, 105-6, 

115-6, 133 ; style prefer- 
ing it to Vakrokti 162 

Hasya : See above under 



Actors 195, 196 

Adaptation 197-212, 217, 

226, 232, 254-5 ; 
converts Dosas into 
Gunas: 201-12, 217, 

226, 232, 254-5 
See also above Aucitya. 
Aesthetics 263 

Agreement 208 See above 

Allegory 67 

Anthologies 82 

Arts. See above Kalah. 
Atmosphere 225, 232 

Beauty. See above Saundarya. 




Cacophony : to be avoided 239 
Caville (Aprayojakapadas) 


Character (personality, 
soul) of poet 1 60, 


„ in the story. See 
above Patra, 
Prakfti and Sila, 
Classical manner : culmi- 
nation of art 163 

Comedy, Comic : employ- 
ment of Nyuaopama and 
Adhikopama in 213. See 
also above Hasya. 
Compounds. See above Samasa 
Conceit. See above Ut- 
preksa under xAlankaras. 
Conductors (of drama) 195 
Continuity 220. See also 
above Anusandhana. 
Court-poetry 76 : its far- 
fetchedness 76 

Decoration. See above 
Alahkara and Aharya. 
Descriptions : should be 
organic, structural, 
necessary and naturally 
emergent 207 ; should be 
proportionate and har- 
monious 219 

Digressions (descriptive) 219 
Double Entendre. See 
above Slesa under Alan- 

Drama 26, 28, 119; as imi- 
tation of the three worlds 
194, and of states of per- 
sonalities 194 ; as repre- 
sentation of moods 196 : 
Alahkaras not to be em- 
phasised in 217 ; gram- 


matical flourishes to be 
avoid/^d in 217; harsh 
words to be avoided in 
217 ; long compounds to 
be avoided in 2 1 7 ; princi- 
ples of Aucitya enforced 
by its form 217 ; text of 1 
Dress. See Make-up as 
also above Aharya and 

Effectiveness the test 199 
Emotional suggestion 155-6 
Episodes (sub-plots) 207, 
219. See also above 
Pataka and Prakari 
Excellence of build 204 

Excess: to be avoided: de- 
corative 160 ; descrip- 
tive 207 

Expediency the test 199 

Expression : ‘ the empiri- 
cal technique ' 255 ; sym- 
bol and vehicle of Rasa 
2 2 5; appoporiate to 
Prakrti 205.^ See also 
above Abhidhavyapara. 

Figurative Language 
49, 58-9 ; adopted when 
one describes to another 
a scene 58 ; less proper 
when character itself 
speaks 74 ; natural in 
heightened moods 61-2 ; 
overdoing of 73 

Fine Arts 263 

Flaw : not absolute, but re- 
lative 196, 199. See also 
above under Dosa 
Form : essential in poetry 
48-50, in art 





Gender > preference of feme- 
nine 80 ; and Dhvani 

222, 240 

Genius (poetic) 8, 49, 261. 

See also above S'akti 
Goodness, not absolute, 
but relative 195, 199 

Grammar 1, 266 ; gramma- 
rians 266 ; grammatical 
flourishes 218 

Harmony 198, 204, 206, 

208, 213, 216, 219, 255, 

*’ *257. See also above 

Hyperbole 142 ; Gaudas* 
love of 142. See also 
above Atis'ayokti and 
Atyukti under Alankara 

Imagination. See above 

Imitation of art (counter- 
feit art) 60 

Impressionism 250 

Incidents. See story 

Jingle 222, 225 

Kashmirian Alankarikas 228 
Keeping (harmonising of 
medium) 255 


Literary forms (play, epic 
etc.) 217 

Logicians 115 

Make-up-, Dress, 194, 196. 

See also above Pravrtti 
Maturity (of expression). 

See above Paka 
Maturity (of poetic power) 
defined as securing ex- 
pression suited to Rasa 


Metaphor. See above 
Rupaka under Alankara 
Mimamsakas 94 fn. 

Moderation 168 

Moods : Drama the repre- 
sentation of 196 ; source 
of action etc. 196 

Music ; appropriate to 
Rasa 195 ; of Dhruvas 
249 ; of words 84 ; musi- 
cal qualities of Rhythm 155 

Nature 194, 196. See also 
above Prakrti, S'ila, Sva- 
bhava, as also World 
Natural Description, See 
above Svabhavokti 
Natural Beauty 10, 20, 22, 
159, 162, 166-7; ren- 
dered further attractive 170 

Language; Aucitya of 
dialects 233 ; exploita- 
tion of all the means 
afforded by 222-3 

Laughter. See Comedy, 
Comic as also above 

Letters : suggestiveness of 
237. See also above 

Onomotopoeic effect 84-5 
Originality : of Kuntaka 
131 ; of Ksemendra 245, 
269; lack'of 88-9 

Painting 255, 263 

Parable 67 

Parody 254 

Perception. See above 




Poet : compared to Rsi 
118. See also above Kavi 
Poets : see world as made 
in beauty 80 ; those with 
learning, but no imagi- 
nation 69, 70, 82 

— of latter day : artificial- 
ity of 88 ; experts in 
Yamaka 87, in S'lesa 77 

Poet’s attitude 253 

Poetic Culture : defined as 
the sense of proper and 
improper 226. See also 
above Vyutpatti 
Poetic Experience : a cir- 
cuit starting with poet 
and ending in reader 124 

Poetic Expression. See 
above Abhidhavyapara, 
Alahkara, Vakrokti 
Poetic insight. See above 

Poetics 258-60, 263-7, 268 
Poetry : and emotion 48 ; 
and expression 49, 50 ; 
and form 49, 50 ; and 
thought 48 ; as beautiful 
idea beautifully express- 
ed 89 ; as criticism of 
life 82 ; as expression 
(Abhidha pradhana) 92 ; 
as expression of the 
poet’s mind 91, 122 ; as 
lila of the poet 91 ; its 
enjoyment an aesthetic 
recreation 124; its essen- 
tial features according 
to Bhamaha 134-6*. 
must be sensuous 84 ; 
neither pure emotion 
nor pure thought 89 ; 
nor even mere manner 
89 not to be judged 


from utilitarian view- 
p o i ij t 91 ; past and 
futures made present in 
118 i similar to God’s 
lila of creation 91 ; a 
striking form natural to 
it 94 ; teaching as an 
aim of 82 ; versus ordi- 
nary talk and scientific 
expression 94, 96 

See also above Kavya 
Practice. See above Abh- 

Precision : of expression 
with ref. to emotional 
suggestion 155-6, 163 

Production (of drama) 196 
Proportion 198, 204, 206, 
208, 219 ; as excellence 
of build 204 ; its per- 
fection all the morals 
in art 198. See also 
above Aucitya 
Propriety 197, 198 ff. See 
also above Aucitya 
Prose. See above Gadya 
Prosody 1, 3, 266. See 
also above Chahdas and 

Provinces : and literary 
manners 131-4, 150 

— Gaudas 131-168. See 
also above Gaudi un- 
der Riti 

— Daksipatyps 150 

— Vidarbhades'a 148 ; 
Vatsagulma its capi- 
tal 148 I headquarters 
of poesy 148 ; home 
of grace 133-4; Vai- 
darbhas 132-168. See 
also above Vaidarbhi 
under Riti 




— Easterners. See G^udas 
— Northerners 131-2 

— Westerners ' 131-2 

Pun. See above S'lesa 
under Alahkara 

Realism. See above Loka- 

Relativity : of good and 
bad in poetry 196, 203, 
255. See Adaptation 

Relevancy 204, 206 

Representation (Drama 
*. as) 196 

Restraint 142 

Rhetoric not poetry 54 

Sanskrit Literary Criti- 
cism 194, 255. See 

also above Alahkara 

Sanskrit Poets : their ear 
for the music of words 8*1 
Satire 254 : Nyunopama 
and Adhikopama used 
in 213 

Sculpture 263 

Simile. See above Upama 
under Alahkara. 

Simplicity in art 157, 160 
Sincerity 166 ; two kinds, 
emotional and artistic 166 

Sound-effect 84-6, 91 ; and 
Rasa 86 ; and Riti and 
Vrtti 86 

Sounds: Pleasing 239; 

torturous 239 

Speech : and Rasa 196 ; 

appropriate on stage 195 

Stage 194-6; Idealism and 
Conventions and Real- 
ism of 195 fn. 

Stock Diction 88-9 


Story : as expression of 
Rasa 218 ; appropriate 
change of 219, 234 ; inci- 
dents of emotional value 
alone to be retained 
218 : subsidiary themes 

219, 220 

Style : a higher and lower 
conception of 140 : and 
oratory 160 ; certain fix- 
ed types of 140, 141 ; 
does correspond to Skt. 

Riti 140-5,153-172 

No end to ethical valua- 
tions of 160 : objective 
140 ; subjective 139 ; 
thematically fixed 140, 
141; two final styles 139 

Affected style 

161, 163 

Agreeable ,, 


Attenuate ,, 


Elegant ,, 

140, 154, 

160, 161 ; 

suited to 



Elevated style 154, 160, 
161 ; may deteriorate 
into Frigid and Af- 
fected styles 163 ; 
suited for battle de- 

scription 154 

Forcible style 154, 160- 
1 ; may deteriorate 
into Frigid and Af- 
fected styles 163 

Frigid style 139, 160-3 ; 

compared to Gaudi 161 

Grand style 155; suited 
to superhuman and 
majestic theme 155 

Grave style 160 

Medium style 160 

Plain style 140, 154, 

160, 161 




Subjectivism 249 

Sublime 263 

Surplusage 158 : to be re- 
moved 60 ; see also above 
Aprayojakapadas and 
Avacyavacana under 

Sympathy (mutual con- 
formity of parts) 208 

Teaching : as aim of poetry. 

See above Upades'a 
Text-reconstruction : Agni- 
purana 176 fn. 180 fn. 
Bhamaha 98-100, 259; 
Locana 186,229; Vyakti- 
viveka 113-4 

Theme : See story ; and 
Riti. See above Riti 

Verbal Ornaments : See 
above S'abdalahkaras. 
Verbal qualities : suited to 
different emotional situ- 
ations 199-200 

Visual suggestion of im- 
agery 155-6 


Western Literary Cri- 
Tici™ 153-63, 255 fn. 
Western writers : and Skt. 
writers — 

Bramaha and Schopen- 
hauer 159 

Bhamaha and Winches- 
ter 162 

Dandin and Schopen- 
hauer 157-9 

Dandin and Stevenson 156 
Kuntakaand Demetrius 161 
Kuntaka and Winches- 
ter L62r3 

Mahima and Stevenson 157 
Vamana and Stevenson 157 
Vamana and Schopen- 
hauer 158-9 

Word : echoing sense 84 ; 
their music 84 ; the sug- 
gestive, proper or strong 
word 223 

World : ground of refer- 
ence of success of art 
195 ; pramana of Natya 
195. See also Nature 
and above Prajtcrti, S^ila 
and Svabhava. 


(The Theosophical Society, Adyar, Madras, S. India) 

. Rs. A. 

1. A Preliminary Rist dp the Samskrt and Prakkt MSS. in 

the Adyar Library^ (Saipskrt-Devanagari) 1910 Boards ... 1 8 

Cloth ... 2 0 

2. A Descriptive Catalogue of the Samskrt MSS. in the Adyar 

Library. By F. O. Schrader, Ph.D., Vol. 1, Upanisads 1912. 

Cloth ... .5 0 

3. The Minor Upanisads (Saipsku) critically edited for the Adyar 

Library. By F. O. Schrader, Ph.D., Vol. I. — Sarpnyasa 1912. 

Cloth ... 10 0 

4. Ahirbudhnya-Sai^hita of the Pancaratra Agama (SaQlsk^t), 

Edited under the supervision of F. O. Schrader, Ph.D., 2 Vols. 

1916 Cloth ... 10 0 

6. Introduction (English) to the Pancaratra and the Ahir- 

BUDHNYA Samhita. By F. O. Schrader, Ph.D. 1916. Cloth ... 3 0 

6* Yoga Up.anisads — 20 — with the Commentary of Sri Lpanisad 
Brahma Yogih. Edited by Papdit A. Mahadeva Sastri, B.A. 

1920 ’ ...5 0 

7. Samanya Vedanta Upanisads— 24-with the commentary of SVi 

Upanisad Brahma Yogin. Edited bv Papdit A. Mahadeva 
Sastri. ‘B. A. 1921 ' ’ ...5 0 

8. Vais.nava Upanisads — 14 —with the Commentary of Sri Upani- 

sad Brahma Yogin. Edited by Papdit A. Mahadeva Sastri, B.A. 
i923 ‘ ...4 0 

9. S'aiva Upanisads— 15 — with the Commentary of Sri Upanisad 

Brahma Yogin. Edited 6y A. Mahadeva Sastri, B.A. 1925 ... 3 0 

10. S'akta Upanisads — 8 — with the Commentary of SVi Upanisad 

Brahma Yogin. Edited by Pandit A. Mahadeva Sastri, B.A. 

1925 *' ... 2 8 

11. Catalogue of Samskrt MSS. in the Adyar Library (revised). 

Edited by the Papdits of the Adyar Library under the direction 
of Prof. C. Kunhan Raja, M.A., D. Phil. (Oxon.), 2 Vols. 1926 
and 1928 Each ... 3 12 

12. Samnyasa Upanisads — 17 — with the Commentary of S ri Upanisad 

Brahmayogin. Edited by T. R. Chintamani, M.A., and the 
Papdits of the Adyar Library, under the direction of Prof. 

C. kunhan Raja, M.A., D, Phil. (Oxon.) 1929 ... ^ 4 0 

13. RukminI Kalyai^a Maha Kavya by Rajacfldamapi Diksita. 

Edited by the Papdits of the Adyar Library and Mr. T. R. 
Chintamani, M.A., under the direction of Prof. C. Kunhan 
Raja, M.A., D. Phil. (Oxon.) 1929 ... 2 0 

14. Unpublished Minor Upanisads with the Commentary of SVi 

Upanisad Brahma Yogin. Edited by the Papdits of the Adyar 
Library, under the direction of Prof. C. Kunhan Raja, M.A., 

D. Phil. (Oxon.) 1933 ... 5 0 

15. Ten Major Upanisads with the Commentary of SVl Upani§ad 

Brahma Yogin, Edited by the Papdits of the Adyar Library 

Rs. A. 

under the direction of Prof. C. Kunhan Raja, M.A., D. Phil. 


Is'a to Aitareya Vol. I — 1935 ... 4 8 

Chandogya and B^hadarapiyaka Vol. II — 1936 6 0 

Vol. I Boards ) o o 

Vol. II „ j ^ ^ 

16. Melaragamalik.\ of Mahavaidyanatha S’ivan. Edited by Papdit 

S. Subrahmanya Sastri, F.T.S. 1937 ... 2 0 

17. SamgrahacOdamaxi— Edited by Papdit S. Subrahmanya Sastri, 

F.T.S. with a critical Introduction in English by T. R. Srini- 
v'^asa Aiyangar, B.A., L.T. 1938 ... 5 0 

18. Pratyabhijnahrdayam (The Secret of Recognition) with English 

Translation and Notes by Dr. K. F. Leidecker, M.A., Ph.D. . 

Text edited by the Staff of the Adyar Library under the direction 
of Dr. G. Srinivasa Murti, B.A., B.L., M.B.&C.M., Vaidyaratna, 

Hon. Director, Adyar Library. 1938 ... J 0 

19. Bhavasai^kranti-SDtra and Nagarjuna’s Bhavasamkranti 

S'astra — with the Commentary of Maitreyinatha - with English 
Translation by Papdit N. Aiyaswanii Sastri, Tirupati. 1938 2 1 

20. Yoga Upanisads. Translated into English by T. R. Srinivasa 

Aiyangar, B.A., L.T., and Papdit S. Subrahmanya Sastri, 

F.T.S. 1938 ’ ...50 

21. * Where Theosophy and Science Meet (in four Parts) by a 

body of experts— Edited by Professor D. D. Kanga, M.A.. 
l.E.S. (Retd.) 

Part 1. Nature — From Macrocosm to Microcosm ... 1 H 

Part 2. Man — From Atom to Man ... 1 14 

Part 3. God — From Humanity to Divinity ... 2 4 

Part 4. Some Practical Applications 1938 ... 2 4 

22. Rgvedavyakhya, Madhavakrta — E dited by Dr. C. Kunhan 

Raja, M.A., D. Phil. (Oxon.) 1939 ' ...6 0 

23. The Number of Rasas. By V. Raghavan. M.A., Ph. D., Depart- 

ment of Sanskrit, University of Madras, with a Foreword by 
Prof. M. Hiriyanna, M.A., formerly Professor of Saipsk^t 
Maharajah’s College, Mysore, 1940 ... 3 0 

24. Sam ANYA Vedanta Upanisads — Translated into English by 

T. R. Srinivasa Aiyangar, B.A., L.T., and Papdit S. Subrah- 
manya Sastri, F.T.S., 1941 ... 5 0 

25. BhagavadgItarthaprakas'ika of Upanisad Brahmayogin (Saips- 

k^t). Edited by the Papdits of the Adyar Library with an Introduc- 
tion by Dr. C. Kunhan Raja, M.A., D.Phil. (Oxon.), 1941 4 0 

26. SiMAVEDA-SAMHiTA— With the Commentaries of Madhava and 

Bharatasvamin. Edited 6y? Dr. C. Kunhan Raja, M.A. D. Phil. 

(Oxon.), 1941 ... 6 0 

27. Raja Dharma (Dewan Bahadur K. Krishnaswami Rao Lectures, 

1938, University of Madras) by Rao Bahadur K. V. Rangaswami 
Aiyangar, M.A., 1941 ... 3 s 

28. Varivasyarahasyam of BhSsurSinandanatha (2nd Edition) by 
Papdit S. Subrahmanya Sastri, F.T.S. (with English Transla- 
tion), 1941 

* Published under the auspices of the Adyar Library Association, 

2 8 

Rs. A. 

29. VYAVAHARANlRTiiAYA OF Varadaraja— Edited by, Rao Bahadur 

K. V. Rangaswami Aiyangar, M.A., and A. N. Krishna 
Aiyangar, M.A., L.T. Adyar Library, 1941 

30. Si^GiTARATNAKARA — With the Commentaries of Catura Kalli- 

fl&tha and Siiphabhupala. Edited by Papdit S. Subrahmanya 
Sastri, F.T.S., Vol. I? 1941 

3L Catalogue of th^Adyar Library, Western Section part 1— 
prepared under tne direction of Bhikshu Arya Asanga, Jt. 
Director and Curator, Western Section, Adyar Library, 1942. 5 0 

32. Alambanapari'ksa and Vrtti by Dihnaga with English transla- 

tion, Tibetan text etc. by Papdit N. Aiyaswami Sastri, Tirupati, 

1942 * _ ... 3 8 

33. Some Concepts of Alai^kara S'astra by Dr. V. Raghavan, 4 o 

M..A., Ph. D., University of Madras, 1942 


A Variant Version of the Ekagnikanpa (Reprinted from the 
Adyar Library Bulletin, October, 1939). Edited by K. Madhava 
Krishna Sarma, M.O.L. 

,^The Rajamrganka of Bhoja (Reprinted from the Adyar Library 
Bulletin, October, 1940). Edited by K. Madhava Krishna 
Sarma, M.O.L. 

The Sat Pancas'ika, a Silpas'astra manual. (Reprinted from the 
Adyar Library Bulletin, February 1942). Edited K. Madhava 
Krishna Sarma, M.O.L. 

The Prama-namanjari of Sarvadeva (Reprinted from the Adyar 
Library Bulletin, May, 1942). Edited by K. Madhava Krishna 
Sarma, M.O.L 

0 3 

0 4 

0 5 
0 6 


1. As'VALAYANAGRHyA-SOxRA— With Devasvami Bh^ya— Edited by Swami 

Ravi Tirtha. 

2. Asvalayanagrhya-SDtka (Bhasya of Devasvami). Translated into Eng- 

lish 63? A. N. Krishna Aiyangar, M.A., L.T., Adyar Library. 

3. JiVANANDANAM OF Anandarayamakhi with a Commentary by Vaidya- 

ratna Papdit M. Duraiswami Aiyangar. Edited by Vaidyaratna 
G. Srinivasa Murti, B.A., B.L., M. B. & C. M. and Vaidyaratna 
Papdit M. Duraiswami Aiyangar. 

4. S'rI Pancaratra Raksa of Sri Vedanta Des'ika — Edited by Vaidya- 

ratna Papdit M. Duraiswami Aiyangar and Vedanta S'iromapi 
T. Venugopalacharya. 

5. Vaisnava Upan ISADS — Translated into English by T. R. Srinivasa Aiyangar 

B. A., L.T. 

6. A Descriptive Catalogue of the Manuscripts in the Adyar Library by 

K. Madhava Krishna Sarma, M.O.L., under the direction of Prof. 

C. Kunhan Raja, M.A., D. Phil. (Oxon.) — Vedic. 

7. UsAi^iiRUDDHO of Rama Papivada, Edited by Papdit S. Subrahmanya 

Sastri, F.T.S. and Dr. C. Kunhan Raja, M.A., D, Phil. (Oxon.). 

8. NyayakusumaFijali of Udayanacarya — Translated into English by Swami 

Ravi Tirtha. 

9. The Apastambasmrti— Edited by A. N. Krishna Aiyangar, M.A., L.T., 

Adyar Library. 

10. The Acyutarayabhyudayam of Rajanatha pipdima — Sargas 7 to 12 — 
by A. N. Krishna Aiyangar, M.A., L.T., Adyar Library. 

n. Ve^aOTA Par JBHA fA— with English translation and Notes by Prof 
S, SnryAnarayana Sastri^ M, A., B. Sc (Oxon.), Reader, Head of the 
Departm^^t of Philosophy* ^^iversity of Madras, 

12 CatuRBaS'alaksa^I of JGaoXohara with Five Commentaries — Edited 
by Pap4it N. Santanam Aiyar 

Agents for our publications : 

Adyar, Madras, S. India 


t. Gautmasm^TI — Edited by A N Krishna Aiyangar, M A , L T , 
Adyar Library. 

2 The Kaladars'a of Aditya BhaxT a— E dited by Rao Bahadur K V 

Rangaswami Aiyangar, M A , and A N. Krishna Ai^^an gar, M A , L T , 
Adyar Library 

3 The Vis^:?usmrti — W ith the Kes'ava Vaijavanti of Nanda Papdita 

Edited by Rao Bahadur K V Rangaswami Aiyangar, M A and 
A. N Krishna Aiyangar, M A , L T , Adyar Library 

4. Paksata of Gadadhara — with four commentaries by Papdit N Santa 

nam Aiyar. 

5. Avayava of Gadadhara — with four commentaries Pandit N Santa- 

nam Aiyar. 

6 VrttaratnavalI — with commentary. English Translation and Notes by 
H G. Naraiiari, M.A. Adyar Library. 



Director: Dr. G. SRINIVASA MURTI, B.A., B.L., 

M.B. & C.M., Vailyaratna 
Editor : PROF. C. Kunhan Raja, M.A., D.Phil. (Oxon.) 

Rates of Subscription : 

Life Subscription Rs. 100 
or i 50 
or £ 10 

, Per Annum Single Copy 

J^ia & Ceylon ... Rs. 6 R&. 2-8 

A, . . $ 3 $.1.25 

ftfttish Empire ... Sh. 12 Sh. 5 

Other l^ountries ... Rs. 9 Rs. 3-8 

All Comtn^^^aiionS to be addressed to : 

The Director, 

A4y0r Library, 

Madras, S. India.